Introduction to expansion, necessary repetition, and closer analysis¶

Part I and Part II both belong to Volume 1, but they serve different purposes. Part I is a history of philosophy that tries to map each school accurately in its own terms, largely withholding judgment. Part II offers analysis, sets out arguments, and makes judgments, taking up the questions left open in Part I one by one. The positions of the two parts occasionally differ. On whether dependent origination should be understood across three lives or in the present, for example, Part I presents both accounts side by side, while Part II reaches a judgment. Historical exposition and philosophical analysis have different responsibilities. Where they differ, readers should understand the difference in those terms. Part II records the book's current position, while Part I retains its original historical account.

Essays are numbered continuously across the two parts. Part II begins with Essay 13 instead of starting again at 1. Cross-references by essay number therefore have only one referent, and there are no two Essay 1s.

Expansion. To maintain the historical sequence, Part I covers many subjects in a single chapter. Part II gives them the space they call for. The extent of the expansion is plain. Essay 1, Chapter 5, "The earliest teachings," expands into the eight chapters of "Analysis of the early teachings." Essay 3, Chapter 4, "Theravāda Abhidhamma," expands into a whole essay, "Analysis of Theravāda Abhidhamma." The material on Sarvāstivāda and the Mahāvibhāṣā in Chapters 1 and 2 of the same essay expands into the whole of "Analysis of Sarvāstivāda philosophy," with further essays still to come. Expansion does not mean stretching the old text. Where Part I only reports conclusions, Part II must present the evidence item by item. Where it cannot, it must say so plainly.

The following table places three essays side by side, showing what each expands and what questions it passes on.

The three rows show different degrees of expansion, for the reason given in the last column. Concluding an essay involves posing questions, not simply ending the discussion. Essay 13 poses enough questions for the next two essays, while Essay 14 poses enough for one. The questions raised at the close of Essay 15 are precisely those taken up in the essays that follow.

Necessary repetition. Each essay in Part II is written to stand on its own, so readers can begin with a single essay. Explanations that overlap with Part I provide a deliberately retained foundation and are not superfluous. Repeated accounts are kept brief, while closer analysis begins afresh. One exception needs to be stated in advance. "Analysis of Theravāda Abhidhamma" and "Analysis of Sarvāstivāda philosophy" were written as a pair. The latter's final chapter directly answers the list of gaps in the former's final chapter. Readers beginning with the latter essay will first need to read that list.

Closer analysis. Part I chiefly narrates, while Part II chiefly argues. Part II follows arguments as far as it can and states explicitly where it stops. Conjectures are always marked as the book's view. Unverified comparisons between Chinese and Pāli texts are marked "pending verification." Questions on which scholarship itself remains divided, and which checking evidence alone cannot settle, are marked "unresolved scholarly question." The two labels are kept distinct. Tables are a regular aid to reading, and reading the tables before the prose is one possible route.

Texts come first. The essays in Part II frequently draw on modern and contemporary theories, including quantum field theory, neuroscience, psychoanalysis, and recent language models. A warning is needed here for readers and for the author, who sometimes makes the same mistake. Theories serve only as limited supporting evidence and analogies in the book, and the texts remain the starting point. The order must not be reversed. First allow the discourses to be heard in full, and then consider whether a modern framework happens to be relevant. Bringing a favorite framework to the discourses and forcing them into it amounts to preconception. Buddhist doctrine already names the mechanism involved. Contact gives rise to feeling, feeling gives rise to craving, and craving conditions clinging, which includes clinging to views. Fitting Buddhism into a framework enacts that very process. If a book on dependent origination falls into the process itself, it becomes its own example of what to avoid. The distinction is extremely fine and calls for the greatest care.

The shape of an essay. Essay 13 established a sequence. It begins with an outline, giving a history and map of the problems, and then analyzes them one by one. A concluding chapter takes stock of the essay's restraint and gaps, followed by a final chapter in the first person recording the author's reflections and understanding. The first chapter was divided into two halves because of its length, an individual arrangement rather than a general rule. Two changes were made afterward.

First, the outline was taken out of Chapter 1 and made into Chapter 0, an introduction to the essay. It explains why the essay exists, how to read it, and where its data come from. It is a guide rather than an argument. When the two are combined, Chapter 1 spends half its length explaining the format before it can address the subject. Separating them lets Chapter 1 begin arguing from its first sentence.

Second, no further chapter of personal reflections has been included. Such a chapter was never a fixed requirement. Essay 13 included one because it dealt with metaphysical delusions in which the author had personally been caught. The next two essays deal with two taxonomies and an ontology, subjects that do not in themselves invite the first person. When a later subject calls for such a chapter, one will be added again.

A concluding chapter, however, is a fixed requirement. The final chapter of each essay must take stock of what the essay has accomplished and what remains unsettled, and the resulting assessment often supplies the next essay's subject.

The plan for organization at the Essay 15 stage. The following preserves the writing record from that stage: Part II is not yet finished. The three completed essays end with "Analysis of Sarvāstivāda philosophy." So far, each has been organized by topic, drawing up a list of problems and asking, one by one, what grounds each claim and what it costs. The coming treatment of the Mahāvibhāṣā and Abhidharmakośa will be different. It asks how an orthodoxy was decided and how insiders then dismantled it. Both questions follow the order of a book. Dividing the discussion by topic would break the book apart, so the analysis must begin from the text instead. When the time comes, the introduction to each essay will explain its form, and readers need make no preparation in advance. For now, the point is simply that the form of Part II changes with its subject and is not a fixed mold.

The plan for the overall scale at the Essay 19 stage. The following likewise preserves the record from that stage. Now that the writing has reached Essay 19, the overall scale of the work can be described. The two largest undertakings in Part II, Essays 13 and 18, are complete, as is the substantial Essay 15. The four essays from here onward, on later Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, Tiantai, and Huayan, will be brief expositions in the same form as Essays 16 and 17. The decision concerns scale, not value. Yogācāra deserves much more space, and each of the other Chinese schools also deserves an essay of its own. The volume provisionally stops at Essay 22. A separate Essay 23, "Analysis of Mahāyāna sūtras," is also being added in a form different from the preceding twenty-two essays. Those essays read treatises, while Essay 23 reads sūtras directly, without going through a treatise author. More sūtras will be added as work continues, with no total length set in advance.