Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

Twilight wrote:Maybe not that sort of radical relativism prevalent in the west today, but like all constructivist, he was nevertheless a relativist. And looking at quotes from wikipedia, he was not at all in line with what the historical Buddha had taught. He was a simple constructivist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABla ... %C4%81#1:1
Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.
Denying causality
Just because you think this quote is denying causality, doesn't mean it is. You are skipping over "nor without a cause". I think he rather clearly doesn't deny causality in the quote you are analysing.
Twilight wrote:
If intrinsic nature does not exist, of what will there be alteration?
If intrinsic nature does exist, of what will there be alteration?
Engaging in pointless speculation that leads nowhere
To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism.
Therefore a wise person does not say "exists" or "does not exist"
A gross constructivist misunderstanding of why Buddha said that. The sutta in question also has an explanation about that, an explanation that is not constructivism
Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated from what nirvana?
"Constructivist" and "postmodern" are being used by you a lot but in very unusual contexts. What do actually think "constructivism" is? Why do you think these statements by Nāgārjuna are "constructivist"?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Twilight »

What do actually think "constructivism" is? Why do you think these statements by Nāgārjuna are "constructivist"?
Constructivism is simply a direction of thinking one can take to search for answers about this world. All who engaged in this direction, be them ancient or modern, ended up having the same conclusions: "all is a mental construction", " all is the same", "things don't really exist" etc. It is simply not the direction the historical Buddha took. The historical Buddha said there is nothing to find by going in this direction.

There are many forms of constructivism. What they all have in common is the direction of thinking those philosophers took and the conclusions they arrived at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism

This direction of thinking begins with questioning the nature of reality and the nature of laws of physics. And from this comes all the non-sense that follows. This is why Buddha said this is useless speculation that will only lead to vexation and madness. It's simply not the place you need to look to understand this world.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Twilight »

Buddha teachings have always been used to make a case for all kind of philosophies be them idealism, materialism, constructivism etc. Out of the 10.000 pag of pali canon, it is easy to take one sutta out of context and spin it to justify all kind of philosophies. But Buddha teachings are subtle, they require a full understanding oh his view to properly understand. You can't take 3 suttas out of context and make a case for all kinds of philosophies.

I have no problem with constructivist, materialist, idealist etc. But I do not like seen Buddha teachings twisted to make a case for them.

You said in this topic that you do not consider reading the pali canon to be important in achieving enlightenment. As Mkoll has responded, there can be people who get enlightened by themselves without reading Buddha teachings. But if you want to speak about what the historical Buddha taught and make a case for him supporting constructivist views, then you certainly need to read the pali canon to see if indeed his view was similar to Nagarjuna or not. Otherwise just make a case for Nagarjuna views been correct without claiming Buddha taught the same things.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Caodemarte »

Twilight wrote:Buddha teachings have always been used to make a case for all kind of philosophies be them idealism, materialism, constructivism etc... But Buddha teachings are subtle, they require a full understanding oh his view to properly understand. You can't take 3 suttas out of context and make a case for all kinds of philosophies...I have no problem with constructivist, materialist, idealist etc. But I do not like seen Buddha teachings twisted to make a case for them... Otherwise just make a case for Nagarjuna views been correct without claiming Buddha taught the same things.
Nagarjuna's views, in his own terms and context, cannot be correct if they differ from Buddha's teachings which Nagarjuna obviously knew far better than anyone here as they are intended as an explication of these teachings. Both indeed are subtle and cannot be fully understood based on a Wikipedia article of all things. Nagarjuna takes a great deal of time to logically demolish the mistaken views of idealism, materialism, relativism, eternalism, nihilism, denial of casualty, etc. and etc. as part of his purpose.
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Twilight »

which Nagarjuna obviously knew far better than anyone here as they are intended as an explication of these teachings.
You have seen the quotes from wikipedia. I didn't write that stuff, Nagarjuna did in his book.
Both indeed are subtle and cannot be fully understood based on a Wikipedia article of all things
But yet those quotes did not come from me, they came from Nanajura.
Nagarjuna takes a great deal of time to logically demolish the mistaken views of idealism, materialism, relativism, eternalism, nihilism, denial of casualty, etc. and etc. as part of his purpose.
Sure. Problem is he is a constructivist. He does not agree with idealism, materialism, eternalism etc. because he is a constructivist. What constructivist agree with is constructivism.

This is a Theravada forum not a Mahayana or a constructivist one. Therevada follows the teachings of the historical Buddha preserved in the Pali Canon. So one should not be suprised to see people who do not agree with constructivism or mahayanism.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

Twilight wrote:
which Nagarjuna obviously knew far better than anyone here as they are intended as an explication of these teachings.
You have seen the quotes from wikipedia. I didn't write that stuff, Nagarjuna did in his book.
Both indeed are subtle and cannot be fully understood based on a Wikipedia article of all things
But yet those quotes did not come from me, they came from Nanajura.
Nagarjuna takes a great deal of time to logically demolish the mistaken views of idealism, materialism, relativism, eternalism, nihilism, denial of casualty, etc. and etc. as part of his purpose.
Sure. Problem is he is a constructivist. He does not agree with idealism, materialism, eternalism etc. because he is a constructivist. What constructivist agree with is constructivism.

This is a Theravada forum not a Mahayana or a constructivist one. Therevada follows the teachings of the historical Buddha preserved in the Pali Canon. So one should not be suprised to see people who do not agree with constructivism or mahayanism.
You haven't actually established that Nágárjuna is a constructivist. You've just said he is several times. Furthermore your definitions for what constitutes "constructivism" are so vague and general I could easily argue that the Buddha was one by using them.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Twilight »

I have already explained what constructivism means:
This direction of thinking begins with questioning the nature of reality and the nature of laws of physics. And from this comes all the non-sense that follows. This is why Buddha said this is useless speculation that will only lead to vexation and madness. It's simply not the place you need to look to understand this world.
Take for example a red car. A constructivist will ask: "why is this car red ?" or "why does the car exist ? ... or does it not exist ? Why does the car exist or not? ", "why do laws of physics work that way?" and will start elucubrating. No matter if the constructivist is ancient or modern, in the end he will arrive at the same conclusions: "all is a mental construction", " all is the same", "things don't really exist" etc. They also generally do not believe in the power of logic and reason because this is said to be a construction too. This is why all of them are relativist to a bigger or lesser degree.

This is how you spot a constructivist. It does not matter through what kind of 3000pag books he has arrived at these conclusions, what they all have in common is the starting point and the conclusions that come from thinking in that direction. This is also how the idea of "thinking your way to enlightenment" or "cleansing your view to enlightenment" developed.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

Bakmoon wrote:Why does the earth element need to be inherently existent in order to have sub elements?
Apart from when the mind is in jhanas (which is not ordinary awareness), does the experience of the earth element ever end or cease? Theravada Buddhism is based on insight where as Nagarjuna is based on intellectual inference.

The Buddha was concerned with the cessation of causes (of suffering) that can be known (such as the cessation of ignorance, craving, attachment, self-view, etc). Where Nagarjuna is expounding a causality that cannot be known but only inferred.
And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. MN 62
Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?

DN 11
:alien:
Bakmoon wrote:I personally think that Nagarjuna's key insights into emptiness are correct and match up quite nicely with the suttas. Many passages in the suttas express the freedom from views and the selflessness of phenomena.
They are not correct because based on Nagarjuna's key theories (not "insights") about emptiness (sunnata), unconditioned sabhava phenomena such as Nibbana & the Dhamma Niyama (Laws) are dependently originated, which is contrary to Theravada. Nibbana & the Law of Dhamma are Emptiness (Sunnata) but not Dependently Originated. Therefore, Nagarjuna's equating of Emptiness with Dependent Origination is wrong from a Theravada viewpoint.
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

Twilight wrote:
Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated from what nirvana?
Claiming nibbana and samsara are the same.
Nāgārjuna's madness, believing Nibbana & samsara are thought-concepts. Just because the word 'nibbana' is used to describe something peaceful does not mean the word is the thing described.

:rolleye:
Twilight wrote:This is how you spot a constructivist.
The constructivist is essentially a 'theist'; they believe their own mind is 'god' or 'brahma' in that their own mind creates the entire world or universe. This is the old Brahmanistic 'nama-rupa' where 'naming' of 'forms' creates the world.
'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.' DN 11
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good
Last edited by CecilN on Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

CecilN wrote:
Twilight wrote:
Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated from what nirvana?
Claiming nibbana and samsara are the same.
Nāgārjuna's insanity, believing all things are thought-concepts

:rolleye:
Twilight wrote:This is how you spot a constructivist.
The constructivist is essentially a 'theist'; they believe their own mind is 'god' or 'brahma' in that their own mind creates the entire world or universe. This is the old Brahmanistic 'nama-rupa' where 'naming' of 'forms' creates the world.
'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.' DN 11
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good
This is not even vaguely similar to anything that Nágárjuna puts forth. You seem to be trying to criticize Maháyána Yogácára via a bizarre misunderstanding of Nágárjuna. Nágárjuna was not a yogácárin. Where did you get the notion that Nágárjuna thinks his mind creates the world?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

Coëmgenu wrote:This is not even vaguely similar to anything that Nágárjuna puts forth. You seem to be trying to criticize Maháyána Yogácára via a bizarre misunderstanding of Nágárjuna. Nágárjuna was not a yogácárin.
If this is so, how do you explain Nágárjuna's statement that Nibbana is the same as samsara? (Please explain in your own words rather than post a link to a 1000 page book). Thanks
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

CecilN wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:This is not even vaguely similar to anything that Nágárjuna puts forth. You seem to be trying to criticize Maháyána Yogácára via a bizarre misunderstanding of Nágárjuna. Nágárjuna was not a yogácárin.
If this is so, how do you explain Nágárjuna's statement that Nibbana is the same as samsara? (Please explain in your own words rather than post a link to a 1000 page book). Thanks
I think you are conflating Madhyamika and Yogácára. Where does Nágárjuna say that samsara and Nibbana are the same thing? I have never encountered him saying such a thing.

For the sake of explanation, however, Tiantai Buddhism does argue that Nibbana and samsara are the "same" on the grounds that misunderstanding is the latent cause for samsara, thus, when misunderstanding ceases, so too does Samsara. This doesn't mean that one teleports to an alternate dimension, it simply means that samsara is arisen through misunderstanding of Nibbana. This is massively off-topic however, since the topic at hand is "what do Theraváda Buddhists think of Nágárjuna", not "is Tiantai's conception of Nibbana in-line with Theraváda" (hint: IMO it is not).

You are confusing two (or three) vastly different schools of Buddhism.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

And to be quite frank I do agree with some of your critiques of Yogácára ("mind-only") Buddhism, however, the topic at hand is Nágárjuna, not Yogácára mind-only metaphysics.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Twilight »

Well...
Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated from what nirvana?
There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana.
There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.
(That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara;
Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABla ... %C4%81#1:1

I say the second quote is quite clear.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

Coëmgenu wrote:Where does Nágárjuna say that samsara and Nibbana are the same thing?
Well...
Where there is neither an addition of nirvana nor a removal of samsara; There, what samsara is discriminated from what nirvana?
There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana.
There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.
(That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara;
Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABla ... %C4%81#1:1

I say the second quote is quite clear.
Post Reply