Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:50 pm

What is your opinion of Nāgārjuna as a Buddhist thinker? He used Mahāyānasūtrāṇi in his discourses, but a very early stage, before the differences between the two sects had diverged in extreme ways...

Consider this:
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".
(Nágárjuna, Múlamadhyamakáriká 15:10)


Although the term "self" is caused to be known of, and although "no self" is taught, no "self" nor any "nonself" whatsoever has been taught by the Buddha's.

The designable is ceased when & where the range of thought is ceased, for Nirváṇa is Dharmatá [i.e. the suchness of dharma], unarisen and unstopping.

Everything is actual, or not actual, or actual and not actual, or neither actual nor not actual: this is the Buddhas' teaching.

Independent, peaceful, not delusionally diversified by delusional diversification, devoid of mental construction, without variation, this is the mark of thatness.

Whatsoever originates dependantly, is not insofar, that and only that.

Nor is it the other; therefore, it is neither exterminated nor eternal.

Not singular, not plural, not exterminated, not eternal.

This is the immortal teaching of the Buddha's, lords of the world.

And again, when the disciples are destroyed, when complete Buddha's do not arrive, [in such a case] the jñána [i.e. gnosis] of the independently enlightened Buddha's proceeds without association with teachings.
(Ibid. 18:6-12)


It doesn't seem especially contrary to Theravāda Buddhism, but there are certain features that mark it as not coming from that specific tradition.

Thoughts?

Also, anyone or everyone is free to think Nāgārjuna is full of nonsense, just please do it respectfully.
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6172
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Mkoll » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:57 pm

Out of curiosity, does Nagarjuna use the concepts of conventional and ultimate truth in his works?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:00 pm

Mkoll wrote:Out of curiosity, does Nagarjuna use the concepts of conventional and ultimate truth in his works?
The dominant narrative about Nāgārjuna's discourse, that I have been exposed to, is that it is all about critiquing the notion that "ultimate truth" is expressible at all in any way that is in any way descriptive as to its "ultimate" nature.

There is a narrative that also frames his discourse as a reactions to various heresies in the Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsāṃghika traditions, namely a certain "svabhāva heresy" ("inherent nature heresy" or "own-being" heresy) pedalled by some Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma theorists. But this is mostly speculation because scholars aren't exactly sure as to precisely what this svabhāva-heresy would have been. Nonetheless he (Nāgārjuna) seems to reference it as a prevalent wrong-view in the Buddhism of his time.
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

User avatar
rachmiel
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:08 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby rachmiel » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:16 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:What is your opinion of Nāgārjuna as a Buddhist thinker?

He's my favorite. (Not that I'm very well read.) Work through the Mulamadhyamakakarika until you "get it" ... and your concept-belief engine will have turned to a smoldering pile of ashes. (Not that I claim to have "gotten" it.) The first four lines pretty much set the tone by utterly obliterating causation:

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

And "consensus reality" goes downhill from there. :clap:
“Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don’t be afraid.” Frederick Buechner

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:24 pm

Coëmgenu wrote: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".

Although the term "self" is caused to be known of, and although "no self" is taught, no "self" nor any "nonself" whatsoever has been taught by the Buddha's.

The designable is ceased when & where the range of thought is ceased, for Nirváṇa is Dharmatá [i.e. the suchness of dharma], unarisen and unstopping.

Everything is actual, or not actual, or actual and not actual, or neither actual nor not actual: this is the Buddhas' teaching.

Independent, peaceful, not delusionally diversified by delusional diversification, devoid of mental construction, without variation, this is the mark of thatness.

It doesn't seem especially contrary to Theravāda Buddhism, but there are certain features that mark it as not coming from that specific tradition.

My comment is it is contrary to Theravāda Buddhism & contrary to the Kaccayanagotta Sutta since the words atthitañceva & natthitañca in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (which Nāgārjuna has relied on) probably refer to forms of 'self-view' rather than the 'existence' & 'non-existence' of all things. This is because the core message of the Kaccayanagotta Sutta is:

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

Where the designable is ceased & where the range of thought is ceased is immaterial jhana rather than Nirvana. Nirvana is the destruction of craving & self-view therefore the range of thought without craving & without self-view is Nirvana. If Nirvana was the absence of thought-concepts then Nirvana would only be temporary because every arahant must live in the world using thought-concepts.

Work through the Mulamadhyamakakarika until the fascinations with Nāgārjuna have turned to a smoldering pile of ashes.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:33 pm

CecilN wrote:Where the designable is ceased & where the range of thought is ceased is immaterial jhana rather than Nirvana. Nirvana is the destruction of craving & self-view therefore the range of thought without craving & without self-view is Nirvana. If Nirvana was the absence of "thought-concepts" then Nirvana would only be temporary because every arahant must live in the world using thought-concepts.
Most of Nāgārjuna's discourse concerns the Parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, and not necessarily "the experience of being Awakened in this life", or "saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu".

See SN 44.1 and 44.2 for the Pāli fourfold negation that Nāgārjuna's eightfold negation is based on.

Certainly Nāgārjuna's statements can be applied to themselves with interesting effect though. And some modernist Western philosophers take issue with Nāgārjuna-as-logician because they argue that his reason is not sound because it is based primarily on Buddhavacana rather than traditional logical arguments familiar to the West.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:35 pm

rachmiel wrote:The first four lines pretty much set the tone by utterly obliterating causation:

Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

Famous verse in Theravāda Buddhism:

"Of all those things that from a cause arise,
Tathagata the cause thereof has told;
And how they cease to be, that too he tells,
This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse."

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5286
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Aloka » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:38 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:Consider this:
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".
(Nágárjuna, Múlamadhyamakáriká 15:10)


In that same chapter 15 "Examination of Essence" of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, when Nagarjuna refers to "the discourse to Katyayana" in verse 7,( J.Garfield translation), he's refering to SN 12.15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta in the Pali Canon.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

Ajahn Amaro mentions him on pages 103 -5 of his book "Small Boat , Great Mountain". He says :


One of Acarya Nagarjuna’s treatises, the Mulamadhyamakakarika is based partly upon a passage from the Pali Canon.
Nagarjuna was a great philosopher, and many of his teachings became central tenets of the Mahayana tradition. But apparently many of his teachings and commentaries were based upon the Pali Canon. The particular passage that this exegesis is derived from goes something like, “When one sees the arising aspect of experience, the coming into being of the world, with right wisdom, then ‘non-existence’ with respect to the world does not occur to one. And when one sees with right wisdom, as it actuallyis, the cessation of the world, the fading away of conditions, then ‘existence’ with respect to the world does not occur to one. . . .
‘All exists’ is one extreme; ‘Nothing exists’ is the other extreme. Instead of resorting to either extreme, the Tathagata expounds the Dharma by the Middle Way: It is with ignorance as condition that formations come to be; it is with formations as condition that consciousness comes to be. . .” (sN 12.15) Then he continues with the whole pattern of dependent origination.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn_Amaro_Small-Boat_Great-Mountain.pdf


:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:20 pm, edited 7 times in total.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:39 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:Most of Nāgārjuna's discourse concerns the Parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, and not necessarily "the experience of being Awakened in this life", or "saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu".

Parinirvāṇa cannot be directly known. It can only be inferred.

That said, if Nāgārjuna's discourse concerns Parinirvāṇa, Nāgārjuna has offered nothing that is original.

Coëmgenu wrote:Certainly Nāgārjuna's statements can be applies to themselves with interesting effect though. And some modernist Western philosophers take issue with Nāgārjuna-as-logician because they argue that his reason is not sound because it is based primarily on Buddhavacana rather than classical Greek logic.

Nāgārjuna is illogical, such as equating emptiness with dependent origination, which was wrong. Although all things, including dependent origination, are emptiness; not all things are dependent origination.

Coëmgenu wrote:See SN 44.1 and 44.2 for the Pāli fourfold negation that Nāgārjuna's eightfold negation is based on.

These suttas are about descriptions of the Buddha rather than descriptions of all things.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:52 pm

CecilN wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:Most of Nāgārjuna's discourse concerns the Parinirvāṇa of the Buddha, and not necessarily "the experience of being Awakened in this life", or "saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu".

Parinirvāṇa cannot be directly known. It can only be inferred.
Yes, and Nagarjuna agrees with you.

CecilN wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:See SN 44.1 and 44.2 for the Pāli fourfold negation that Nāgārjuna's eightfold negation is based on.

Please explain/argue your post here rather than tell others to read these suttas. Thanks
Umm.... ok. well.. theres this thing in SN 44.1 and 44.2 called the fourfold negation, and Nāgārjuna adapted it to be an eightfold negation, and the relation to them is that Nāgārjuna frames the fourfold negation as being two arrays, one positive and one negative, that is, he thinks the Buddha's fourfold negation is true in the negative and the positive, which both say the same thing, and those two fourfold arrays are designed to combat certain Buddhist heresies that Nāgārjuna was fighting. ...is that an ok answer for you?

This is the fourfold negation array from the Pāli Canon, where X is "being", for instance, or "persistence of the Tathāgata after death", its used for a number of refutations:

1. X
2. not-X
3. X and not-X
4. not-(X or not-X)

And this is the eightfold negation array of Nāgārjuna:

1. X
2. Not-X
3. Both X and Not-X
4. Neither X nor Not-X
5. Not (X)
6. Not (Not-X)
7. Not (Both X and Not-X)
8. Not (Neither X nor Not-X)

This array is designed to refute various claims about the nature of "ultimate reality"/"the deathless".
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:54 pm

Aloka wrote:...the coming into being of the world...

The word 'loka' or 'world' does not generally refer to the physical world, such as the planet earth. The planet earth does not arise via the process of dependent origination.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:57 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:SN 44.1 and 44.2

These suttas are irrelevant. These suttas contain stock phrases & arguments given to people who were obsessed with their personality-view of the Buddha & their wrong view that a Buddha experiences "death" (marana). SN 22.85 may sort help here.

Coëmgenu wrote:Yes, and Nagarjuna agrees with you.

Nagarjuna does not agree with me because I consider Parinibbana to be unimportant and I would not write thousands of words about it. Nibbana is important because without Nibbana there can be no Parinibbana.

Parinibbana refers to the termination of life of an arahant because arahants do not "die" (SN 22.85; MN 140).
Last edited by CecilN on Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby aflatun » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:00 pm

I'm personally a huge fan and find him quite consistent with the views of Ven. Ñāṇananda (also a huge fan :) ) and others, and the Pali Texts.

As an aside I've been reading a great deal by Eviatar Shulman lately and he has an avid interest in Nagarjuna, especially as compared to Yogacara. I'll post some links later if anyone is interested.

Edited to add something from the Heretic Sage (Ñāṇananda):

“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nib­bāna ser­mons,” he says, “because there was no need. All that was needed was already found in the Sut­tas. Teach­ers like Nāgār­juna brought to light what was already there but was hid­den from view. Unfor­tu­nately his later fol­low­ers turned it in to a vāda.”

He goes on to quote two of his favourite verses from Ven. Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamād­hya­makakārikā (as usual, from memory):

Śūnyatā sarva-dṛṣtīnaṃ proktā niḥsaranaṃ jinaiḥ,
yeṣāṃ śūnyatā-dṛṣtis tān asād­hyān babhāṣire [MK 13.8]

The Vic­to­ri­ous Ones have declared that empti­ness is the relin­quish­ing of all views. Those who are pos­sessed of the view of empti­ness are said to be incorrigible.

Sarva-dṛṣti-prahāṇāya yaḥ sad­dhar­mam adeśayat,
anukam­pam upādāya taṃ namasyāmi gau­tamaṃ [MK 26.30]

I rev­er­ently bow to Gau­tama who, out of com­pas­sion, has taught the doc­trine in order to relin­quish all views.

Bhante doesn’t bother trans­lat­ing the verses; the ones pro­vided above are by David Kalupahana.

“When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubt­ing Ven. Nāgārjuna’s san­ity” he laughs. “But the work needs to be under­stood in the con­text. He was tak­ing a jab at the Sarvās­tivādins. To be hon­est, even the oth­ers deserve the rebuke, although they now try to get away by using Sarvās­tivāda as an excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgār­juna must have been, to com­pose those verses so ele­gantly and fill­ing them with so much mean­ing, like the Dhamma­pada verses. It’s quite amaz­ing...If there is no sub­stance in any­thing, what is left is empti­ness. But many peo­ple are afraid of words. Like śūnyatā. They want to pro­tect their four.” With that ‘irrev­er­ent’ com­ment about the four para­mattha dhamma–s of the Abhid­hamma, Bhante Ñāṇananda breaks into amused laughter.


http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... ge,_Part_2
Last edited by aflatun on Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We approach the Buddha’s teaching with our precast pigeonholes: either it has to be idealism, or it must be realism. If one really wants to call this an ‘ism’, they should be calling it ‘let-go-ism’. One picks up only to make use of and let go.

Ñāṇananda

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5286
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Aloka » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:00 pm

CecilN wrote:
Aloka wrote:...the coming into being of the world...


The word 'loka' or 'world' does not generally refer to the physical world, such as the planet earth. The planet earth does not arise via the process of dependent origination.


Thank you Cecil , but I already know about the different meanings to "world".


:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1113
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:01 pm

CecilN wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:SN 44.1 and 44.2

These suttas are irrelevant. These suttas contain stock phrases & arguments given to people who were obsessed with their personality-view of the Buddha & their wrong view that a Buddha experiences "death" (marana). SN 22.85 may sort help here.
Most people disagree with you on this. Myself included.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bhagavā arahaṃ sammasāmbuddho:
Svākkhāto yena bhagavatā dhammo / Supaṭipanno yassa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
Tammayaṃ bhagavantaṃ sadhammaṃ sasaṅghaṃ / Imehi sakkārehi yathārahaṃ āropitehi abhipūjayāma.
(Dedication of Offerings)
此等諸法,法住、法空、法如、法爾,法不離如,法不異如,審諦真實、不顛倒。These many dharmāḥ, the residence of these dharmāḥ, the emptiness of these dharmāḥ, these dharmāḥ self-explain, these dharmāḥ are thus, these dharmāḥ do not depart from their self-explaining, these dharmāḥ are not different than their self-explaining, judged as truly real, not delusional. (SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:02 pm

Aloka wrote:I already know about the different meanings to "world".

I was critiquing Ajahn Amaro, who appeared to be referring to 'existence' & 'non-existence' of sensory experience, which is a tenuous topic.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:04 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:Most people disagree with you on this. Myself included.

So you & most people believe arahants experience "death" (marana)? The suttas totally refute this wrong view.

Coëmgenu wrote:The dominant narrative about Nāgārjuna's discourse, that I have been exposed to, is that it is all about critiquing the notion that "ultimate truth" is expressible at all in any way that is in any way descriptive as to its "ultimate" nature.

This is wrong. Again, it is immaterial jhana or the sphere of nothingness. Nibbana is the destruction of craving (taṇhākkhayo) rather than the destruction of descriptions. In respect to sankharas, Nibbana is the calming of sankharas (sabba-sankhara-samatho) rather than their destruction.

sabba­saṅ­khā­ra­sama­tho sabbū­padhipa­ṭi­nissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.
Last edited by CecilN on Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6172
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Mkoll » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:12 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Mkoll wrote:Out of curiosity, does Nagarjuna use the concepts of conventional and ultimate truth in his works?
The dominant narrative about Nāgārjuna's discourse, that I have been exposed to, is that it is all about critiquing the notion that "ultimate truth" is expressible at all in any way that is in any way descriptive as to its "ultimate" nature.

There is a narrative that also frames his discourse as a reactions to various heresies in the Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsāṃghika traditions, namely a certain "svabhāva heresy" ("inherent nature heresy" or "own-being" heresy) pedalled by some Sarvāstivāda Abhidharma theorists. But this is mostly speculation because scholars aren't exactly sure as to precisely what this svabhāva-heresy would have been. Nonetheless he (Nāgārjuna) seems to reference it as a prevalent wrong-view in the Buddhism of his time.

Thanks.

I tried reading Garfield's translation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā some years back before I became Buddhist. I didn't get very far because I didn't think putting in the time and effort to understanding it as worth it. I'd consider trying to read it again, but it's low on my reading list.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Caodemarte
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Caodemarte » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:16 pm

The late Theravada scholar Kalupahana argued in his many works, including his translation of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, that Nagarjuna's ideas were implicit or explicit in early Buddhism and in Theravada. They are shared ideas so there is no contradiction possible.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:18 pm

Caodemarte wrote:The late Theravada scholar Kalupahana argued n his many works, including his translation of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā that Nagarjuna's ideas were implicit or explicit in early Buddhism and in Theravada. They are shared ideas so there is no contradiction possible.

If so, Kalupahana had wrong view because Nagarjuna often contradicted Theravada.


Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine