[MD] Nagasena & King Milinda by Mark Siderits

[MarshaV]

From 'BUDDHISM AS PHILOSOPHY' by Mark Siderits:
 
The text we are about to examine comes from a work called 'Milindapanha' or 'The Questions of King Milinda'  It is a dialogue between a king, Milinda, and a Buddhist monk named Nagasena.  Milinda is an historical figure.  He lived in the second century BCE, was Of Greek ancestry (his Greek name was Menandros), and was a ruler in Bactia (in present-day Pakistan) after the conquest of Alexander the Great.  Milinda probably did discuss Buddhist teachings with Buddhist monks, but we don't know if there was a Nagasena among them.  The work was composed early in the first century CE, and it is probably not the transcription of an actual conversation.  More importantly, it is not an early Buddhist work; it does not record the teachings of the Buddha and his immediate disciples.  It is still useful for our purposes, though.  For it is recognized as authoritative by a number of different Abhidharma schools.  So its views represent a consensus position among a wide variety of commentarial traditions on the teachings of the Buddha.
 
The passage we are going to look at represents the first meeting of Nagasena and Milinda.  Notice how the conventional practice of exchanging names leads right to a substantive philosophical dispute,
 
---
 
       "Then King Milinda drew near to where the venerable Nagesena was; and having drawn near, he greeted the venerable Nagasena; and having passed the compliments of friendship and civility, he sat down respectfully at one side.  And the venerable Nagasena returned the greeting; be which, verily, he won the heart of King Milinda.
 
       "And King Milinda spoke to the venerable Nagasena as follows: 'How is your reverence called?  Sir, what is your name?'
 
       "Your majesty, I am called Nagasena; my fellow-monks, your majesty, address me as Nagasena: but whether parents give the name of Nagasena, or Surasena, or Virasena, or Sihasena, it is, nevertheless, your majesty, just a counter, an expression, a convenient designator, a mere name, this Nagasena; for there is no person here to be found."
 
---
 
Notice that his point here is not that his parents could have given him any of those names instead.  While this is true, it's not philosophically significant.  His point is rather that whatever name he was given is just a useful way of labeling something that is not actually a person:
 
---
 
       "Then said King Milinda, 'Listen to me, my lords, you five hundred Yonakas, and eighty thousand monks!  Nagasena here says thus:  There is no person here to be found.'  Is it possible, pray, for me to assent to what he says?'
 
       "And King Milinda spoke to the venerable Nagasena as follows:  'Nagasena, if there is no person to be found, who is it who furnishes you monks the priestly requisites --- robes, food, bedding, and medicine, the needs of the sick?  Who is it that makes use of the same?  Who is it that keeps the precepts?  Who is it that applies himself to meditation?  Who is it that realizes the Path, the Fruits, and nirvana?  Who is it that destroys life?  Who is it who takes what is not given him?  Who is it that commits immorality?  Who is it that tells lies?  Who is it that drinks intoxicating liquor?  Who is it that commits the five crimes that constitute "proximate karma"?  In that case, there is no merit; there is no demerit; there is no one who does or has done meritorious or demeritorious deeds; neither good nor evil deeds can have any fruits or result.  Nagasena, neither is he a murderer who kills a monk, nor can you monks, Nagasena have any teacher, preceptor, or ordination.'"
 
---
 
If there are no persons, there can be no one who gives alms to monks, nor can there be monks who embark on the path to nirvana.  Likewise there can be none who commit evil deeds.  These and other absurdities are what Milinda thinks follow from Nagasena's claim:
 
---
 
       "When you say, 'My fellow-monks, your majesty, address me as Nagasena,' what then is this Nagasena?  Pray, sir, is the hair of the head Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is the hair of the body Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Are nails ... teeth ... skin ... flesh ... sinew ... bones ... marrow of the bones ... kidneys ... heart ... liver ... pleura ... spleen ... lungs ... intestines ... mesentery ... stomach ... faeces ... bile ... phlegm ... pus ... blood ... sweat ... fat ... tears ... lymph ... saliva ... snot ... synovial fluid ... urine ... brain of the head Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is now, sir, rupa(the body as a whole) Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is feeling Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is perception Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is volition Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is consciousness Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Are, then, sir, rupa, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness, which is Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Is it then, sir, something besides rupa, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, which is Nagasena?'
            'Indeed not, your majesty.'
            'Sir, although I question you very closely, I fail to discover any Nagasena.  Verily, now sir, Nagasena is a mere empty sound.  What Nagasena is there here?  Sir you speak a falsehood, a lie: there is no Nagasena.'"
 
---
 
___