Questions & explanations
1. What are the seven lines of reasoning Candrakīrti uses to analyze the self?
Candrakīrti examines whether the self is the same as the body and mind (the five aggregates), different from them, or related in other ways. The seven possibilities are: (1) the self is the aggregates, (2) the self is different from the aggregates, (3) the self possesses the aggregates, (4) the self is in the aggregates, (5) the aggregates are in the self, (6) the self is the shape of the aggregates, and (7) the self is the collection of the aggregates. He shows each one is logically impossible. For example, if the self were the aggregates, it would change every moment. If it were different, it would be unrelated to experience. This analysis reveals that the self is not found anywhere, so it is empty of inherent existence.
2. Give an example of a teaching from the Great Learning.
The Great Learning teaches that to bring peace to the world, one must first cultivate one's own character. It says that from the ruler to the common person, all must consider self-cultivation as the root. For example, if you want to govern a country well, you should first regulate your family. To regulate your family, you should first cultivate your own mind and heart. This shows that personal virtue is the foundation for everything else. The text emphasizes a step-by-step process: investigate things, extend knowledge, make intentions sincere, rectify the mind, cultivate the self, regulate the family, and then govern the state. This idea is central to Confucian political philosophy.
3. What is the main difference between internalism and externalism about knowledge?
Internalism says that for a belief to count as knowledge, the reasons for it must be inside the person's mind—things they can think about. Externalism says the reasons can be outside the mind, like how the belief was formed, even if the person doesn't know those reasons. In Buddhist pramana (the study of knowledge), Dharmakirti's view is often seen as externalist because he focuses on causal reliability. For example, if your eye works well and you see a pot, that counts as knowledge even if you don't know how the eye works. Internalists would say you need to be aware of the reliability. So internalism looks inward, externalism looks at the process.
4. In Madhyamaka, what is the difference between conventional truth and ultimate truth?
Conventional truth is how things appear in everyday life—like a table or a person—that we can talk about and use. Ultimate truth is the deeper reality that nothing has a fixed, independent existence; everything is empty of a permanent self. For example, a car exists conventionally as a useful object, but ultimately it is just parts in relation. Madhyamaka says both truths are important: we need conventional truth to function, but we must understand ultimate truth to overcome suffering. They are not two separate realities but two ways of looking at the same thing. A famous saying is that nirvana and samsara are not different, just seen differently.
5. Compare the role of Confucianism in Japan with its role in China.
In China, Confucianism was the core of government and education for over 2000 years. Emperors used Confucian ideas to rule, and officials had to pass exams on Confucian texts. In Japan, Confucianism was important but never the only system. Japan had a warrior government (shogunate) that used Confucian ethics to justify loyalty and hierarchy, but also relied on Buddhism and Shinto. Chinese Confucianism was more scholarly and focused on moral cultivation through study. Japanese Confucianism was more action-oriented, especially the Yomei-gaku school, which influenced samurai behavior. So Confucianism in Japan was adapted to a feudal military society.
6. Compare internalism with the Buddhist idea of 'reflective awareness' (svasaṃvedana).
Reflective awareness in Buddhism is the mind's ability to know itself, like being aware that you are seeing. Some Buddhist thinkers say this inner awareness is needed for knowledge, which sounds like internalism. But Dharmakirti used reflective awareness to make perception self-aware, not to add extra reasons. Internalism requires that the person can access and give reasons for their belief. Reflective awareness just makes the perception conscious, but it does not provide reasons. So it is not exactly internalism. The difference is that internalism demands reasons you can think about, while reflective awareness is just a feature of consciousness.
7. Why does Candrakīrti argue that the self cannot be the same as the five aggregates?
If the self were the same as the aggregates (body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, consciousness), then whenever the aggregates change, the self would change completely. For example, when you get a haircut, your body changes, so your self would become a different self. Also, there are many aggregates, so you would have many selves. And when the body dies, the self would end entirely, which contradicts rebirth. Moreover, if the self were the aggregates, then the self would be impermanent and subject to suffering, but we normally think of the self as a continuous owner. Therefore, the self cannot be identical to the aggregates.
8. If a person has a true belief from a reliable source but cannot explain why it is true, would a Buddhist pramana theorist call it knowledge?
It depends on the Buddhist school. Dharmakirti's tradition would say yes, because the belief is caused by a reliable process like perception or inference. They focus on the causal reliability, not the person's ability to explain. Other Buddhist thinkers, like those who emphasize reflection, might say no, because knowledge requires understanding the reasons. For example, if someone correctly believes that fire is hot because they touched it, Dharmakirti would say they know. But if they cannot explain why fire is hot, a more internalist Buddhist might say they only have true belief, not knowledge. So there is debate within Buddhism.
9. How does the Madhyamaka view of two truths relate to the idea of 'emptiness'?
Emptiness is the ultimate truth: all phenomena are empty of a permanent, independent self or essence. But emptiness itself is not a thing; it is just the absence of that false nature. The two truths are a way to talk about emptiness without denying everyday experience. For example, a cup is empty of a cup-nature, but conventionally we can still drink from it. Madhyamaka says that emptiness and conventional existence are not contradictory; they are two sides of the same coin. Understanding this prevents nihilism (thinking nothing exists) and eternalism (thinking things are solid). The middle way is to hold both truths together.
10. If everything is empty of inherent existence, why do we still need to follow moral rules?
Even though things are empty, moral rules are conventionally true and have effects. If you harm someone, they suffer, and you create negative karma that leads to your own suffering later. Emptiness does not mean nothing matters; it means that actions and their results depend on causes and conditions. For example, if you steal, the owner loses something, and you plant a seed of future loss for yourself. Madhyamaka says that understanding emptiness actually makes you more compassionate, because you see that others' suffering is real on the conventional level. So moral rules are essential for peace and progress on the path.
11. How did Japanese Confucianism differ from Korean Confucianism?
Japanese Confucianism was less strict and more practical than Korean Confucianism. In Korea, Neo-Confucianism was the only official ideology and controlled every part of life. In Japan, Confucianism competed with Buddhism, Shinto, and other schools. Japanese scholars often mixed Confucian ideas with local traditions. For example, they applied Confucian loyalty to the samurai's duty to his lord, which became part of bushido. Also, Japan did not have a civil service exam system like Korea; instead, Confucian learning was for the elite warrior class. So Japanese Confucianism was more flexible and adapted to feudal society.
12. Give an example where an externalist would say you have knowledge but an internalist would not.
Imagine a person who has a true belief because of a reliable process, but they have no idea why the belief is true. For instance, a child sees a tree and believes it is a tree because her vision works well, but she cannot explain why her vision is reliable. An externalist would say she knows it is a tree because the process (vision) is reliable. An internalist would say she does not know because she cannot access any reasons for her belief. In Buddhist terms, a person might have a correct perception of suffering but not understand the reasons behind it—externalists accept it as knowledge, internalists demand reflection.