Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

Bakmoon wrote:If earth has a permanent quality of being earth and cannot vanish into nothing, then that makes the earth element permanent. Something that cannot cease is permanent, and this is contrary to the Buddha's fundamental insight that all conditioned phenomena are to be regarded as impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self. Saying the elements are permanent is contrary to this.
Not at all. Impermanence means earth element changes form, decays, loses life, is lost, etc, that is all.
In 1851, the British archaeologist Sir Alexander Cunningham was excavating at the Asokan Buddhist complex in Sanchi, near Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh in India, which dated to the 3rd century BCE. In the famous Third Stupa, he uncovered the bodily relics of Sariputra and Mahammoggallana. At approximately the same time, more relics of the two arahants were found in a stupa at Satadhara, about ten kilometres from Sanchi.
"'A boil,' monks, is another word for this body composed of the four properties, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject to impermanence, rubbing & massaging, breaking-up & disintegrating....For that reason, you should become disenchanted with this body." AN 9.15
Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death SN 12.2
How, householder, is one afflicted in body and afflicted in mind? Here, householder, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He lives obsessed by the notions: ‘I am form, form is mine.’ As he lives obsessed by these notions, that form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. SN 22.1
exist
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:14 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by exist »

CecilN wrote:
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.
Amazing, this is something new.

Do you infer this statement from sutta analysis or from some direct experiences ?

But I believe, without some direct experiences, it is nearly impossible to come to the statement that Nibbana is the "calming of sankharas". Can you explain more about this characteristics ?
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Bakmoon »

CecilN wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:If earth has a permanent quality of being earth and cannot vanish into nothing, then that makes the earth element permanent. Something that cannot cease is permanent, and this is contrary to the Buddha's fundamental insight that all conditioned phenomena are to be regarded as impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self. Saying the elements are permanent is contrary to this.
Not at all. Impermanence means earth element changes form, decays, loses life, is lost, etc, that is all.
That is incorrect. If you examine the suttas, you will find that the teaching of impermanence is over and over again presented in terms of phenomena arising and passing away.

For example, the famous verse:
How inconstant are compounded things!
Their nature: to arise & pass away.
They disband as they are arising.
Their total stilling is bliss.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
And sometimes there is explicit mention of this in terms of the four elements. For example the passage Mkoll previously cited.
"When a monk discerns, as it actually is, the origination & passing away of the four great elements [earth, water, wind, & fire], my friend, it is to that extent that his vision is said to be well-purified."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
(emphasis added)

To say that the earth is eternal but is impermanent in the sense of changing between forms is not the deep impermanence taught in the suttas.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8159
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

aflatun wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
aflatun wrote:Great posts, thank you for the lucid explanations. Despite all of that, isn't it true that Nagarjuna does not ascribe inherency or existence to Nirvana?
Nāgārjuna does not ascribe inherency to hypostatizations of Nibbāna, which includes almost all views and inferences that one can try to make about Nibbāna. Nāgārjuna does not deny the inherency or unconditionedness of Nibbāna:
That which when dependent or conditioned comes into and goes out of existence,
that, when not conditioned or dependent, is called nirvāṇa.
(Mūlamadhyamakakārikā XXV)

In short, anything that is conditioned is considered not Nibbāna in the text, including "conceptions of Nibbāna", which are mental formations, not Nibbāna itself.

aflatun wrote:EDIT: I can't make sense of a view of what is beyond cessation being conditioned by Nirvana, unless it means the view is conditioned by one's ideas, reifications, etc, of Nirvana, not Nirvana itself, if you'll permit that way of putting it (which is problematic!)
Views of what is beyond cessation are conditioned by "notions" of Nirvana, which in turn is conditioned by "Nirvana" via the Buddha, they are simply misconceptions of the Buddha's teaching, yeah, thats what is being said, at least by my reading of the text.

I'll look up some of the commentaries and see if they have different insights.
Thank you for the swift response. I'm not being a nitpicker here, just wanted to be clear. I asked about inherency specifically because I'm clear on his assertion that Nirvana is unconditioned, that's quite unambiguous. But I don't see him calling Nirvana existent or inherent (in your quote for example), and I think the distinction is important. What do you think?
I'm still doing some research to see what other people more informed than I have said on the issue, but I think that my own meagre surface-level reading of the opening dedicatory quatrain of the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā might be of at least some minor merit in determining what the ultimate stance of Nāgārjuna is on the subject of true unconditioned Nibbāna devoid of hypostatizations and ignorance, or at least will offer an uninformed amateurs take on the issue.

I think that Nāgārjuna identifies hypostatization as the key feature of samsara, and ultimately a direct consequence of the root of suffering: ignorance. I think that Nāgārjuna identifies hypostatization to be a constant condition of samsaric existence, and perhaps the most pernicious of fetters, because it is ultimately linked to self-conception, particularly the proliferation of diverse self-conceptions subject to causal conditionality. I think this is evident in the meaning of the word that is being translated as "hypostatization".

The word Nāgārjuna uses, which is translated as "cessation of hypostatization" is prapañcopaśama. This is a compound word consisting of "prapañca" which refers to "profilerations/increases/reinventions" (source 1, 2) and apaśama, meaning cessation.

Consider the opening dedicatory quatrain of the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā:
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||


I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, according to which there is neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor the eternal, neither singularity nor plurality, neither the coming nor the going of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvāṇa characterized by the auspicious cessation of hypostatization.
(Mūlamadhyamikakārikā, Siderits translation)

The english translation is a bit ambiguous here, due to the grammatical complexity of the long opening sentence, preserved in a form of alliterative rhyme designed to ease the memorization process of the work, which was originally oral literature. The ambiguity in the English translation relates to if the grammatical clause "for the purposes of nirvāṇa characterized by [...]" relates solely to "the coming [or] going of any dharma" or if it is the completion of the incomplete clause "the Fully Enlightened One, [...] who taught the doctrine [...]". My own meagre and insufficiently amateur linguistic analysis of the Sanskrit, however tentatively suggests that the structure of the sentence is "I salute the Fully Enlightened One, [...], who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, [...], for the purposes of nirvāṇa characterized by the auspicious cessation of hypostatization." The material omitted in that quotes is descriptive linguistic adjuncts designed to describe the subject of the dependant clause "who taught the doctrine of dependent origination". This is evident because pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ are both marked in the accusative case, marking them as the object of the phrase "yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam", the subject of which is "deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam" (I salute the Fully Enlightened One, best of orators, who taught). If anyone here is a Sanskrit buff it would be good to have a second pair of eyes look over that though, the grammar of the passage is somewhat impenetrable to non-specialists like myself.

A rendition that more accurately preserves the Sanskrik word-order, but is less easily intelligible for an English-speaker, of the opening quatrain might have been:
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||

Neither cessation, nor origination, neither annihilation, nor the eternal,
Neither singularity, nor plurality, neither the coming, nor the going,
The doctrine of dependent origination, for the auspicious cessation of hypostatization,
I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught [this].


Many times in the text Nāgārjuna equates the realization of liberation, or at the very least a vital step in that direction, with the cessation of hypostatizations. I think that from the perspective presented in the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā, it might be considered that the only way to non-hypostatize Nibbāna is to completely realize it (Nibbāna itself), or rather, it might be argued that the only way to non-hypostatize Nibbāna, to not form false mental construction(s) of it, might be the very experience of Awakening itself, of Cessation itself. The opening dedicatory refrain frames Nibbāna as the cessation of hypostatization, or rather, it is said therein that hypostatization-cessation "characterizes" Nibbāna, the cessation of hypostatization being the cessation of proliferations, and that is something that should be analyzed in light of the Pāli tradition. I am not altogether sure if Nāgārjuna thinks that it is possible at all to non-hypostatize Nibbāna until it has been fully realized, hence his critique of hypostatizations of Nibbāna.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by aflatun »

Coëmgenu wrote:
I think that Nāgārjuna identifies hypostatization as the key feature of samsara, and ultimately a direct consequence of the root of suffering: ignorance. I think that Nāgārjuna identifies hypostatization to be a constant condition of samsaric existence, and perhaps the most pernicious of fetters, because it is ultimately linked to self-conception, particularly the proliferation of diverse self-conceptions subject to causal conditionality. I think this is evident in the meaning of the word that is being translated as "hypostatization".

The word Nāgārjuna uses, which is translated as "cessation of hypostatization" is prapañcopaśama. This is a compound word consisting of "prapañca" which refers to "profilerations/increases/reinventions" (source 1, 2) and apaśama, meaning cessation.

Consider the opening dedicatory quatrain of the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā:
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||


I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, according to which there is neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor the eternal, neither singularity nor plurality, neither the coming nor the going of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvāṇa characterized by the auspicious cessation of hypostatization.
(Mūlamadhyamikakārikā, Siderits translation)

The english translation is a bit ambiguous here, due to the grammatical complexity of the long opening sentence, preserved in a form of alliterative rhyme designed to ease the memorization process of the work, which was originally oral literature. The ambiguity in the English translation relates to if the grammatical clause "for the purposes of nirvāṇa characterized by [...]" relates solely to "the coming [or] going of any dharma" or if it is the completion of the incomplete clause "the Fully Enlightened One, [...] who taught the doctrine [...]". Linguistic analysis of the Sanskrit, however reveals that the structure of the sentence is "I salute the Fully Enlightened One, [...], who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, [...], for the purposes of nirvāṇa characterized by the auspicious cessation of hypostatization." The material omitted in that quotes is descriptive linguistic adjuncts designed to describe the subject of the dependant clause "who taught the doctrine of dependent origination". This is evident because pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ are both marked in the accusative case, marking them as the object of the phrase "yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam", the subject of which is "deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam" (I salute the Fully Enlightened One, best of orators, who taught).

A rendition that more accurately preserves the Sanskrik word-order, but is less easily intelligible for an English-speaker, of the opening quatrain might have been:
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||

Neither cessation, nor origination, neither annihilation, nor the eternal,
Neither singularity, nor plurality, neither the coming, nor the going,
The doctrine of dependent origination, for the auspicious cessation of hypostatization,
I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught [this].


Many times in the text Nāgārjuna equates the realization of liberation, or at the very least a vital step in that direction, with the cessation of hypostatizations. I think that from the perspective presented in the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā, it might be considered that the only way to non-hypostatize Nibbāna is to completely realize it (Nibbāna itself), or rather, it might be argued that the only way to non-hypostatize Nibbāna, to not form false mental construction(s) of it, might be the very experience of Awakening itself, of Cessation itself. The opening dedicatory refrain frames Nibbāna as the cessation of hypostatization, or rather, it is said therein that hypostatization-cessation "characterizes" Nibbāna, the cessation of hypostatization being the cessation of proliferations, and that is something that should be analyzed in light of the Pāli tradition. I am not altogether sure if Nāgārjuna thinks that it is possible at all to non-hypostatize Nibbāna until it has been fully realized, hence his critique of hypostatizations of Nibbāna.

Thank you for the detailed explanation, I will digest this and respond a bit later!
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by aflatun »

Coëmgenu wrote:
In short, anything that is conditioned is considered not Nibbāna in the text, including "conceptions of Nibbāna", which are mental formations, not Nibbāna itself.


I think that Nāgārjuna identifies hypostatization as the key feature of samsara, and ultimately a direct consequence of the root of suffering: ignorance. I think that Nāgārjuna identifies hypostatization to be a constant condition of samsaric existence, and perhaps the most pernicious of fetters, because it is ultimately linked to self-conception, particularly the proliferation of diverse self-conceptions subject to causal conditionality. I think this is evident in the meaning of the word that is being translated as "hypostatization".

The word Nāgārjuna uses, which is translated as "cessation of hypostatization" is prapañcopaśama. This is a compound word consisting of "prapañca" which refers to "profilerations/increases/reinventions" (source 1, 2) and apaśama, meaning cessation.

Consider the opening dedicatory quatrain of the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā:
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||


I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, according to which there is neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor the eternal, neither singularity nor plurality, neither the coming nor the going of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvāṇa characterized by the auspicious cessation of hypostatization.
(Mūlamadhyamikakārikā, Siderits translation)

The english translation is a bit ambiguous here, due to the grammatical complexity of the long opening sentence, preserved in a form of alliterative rhyme designed to ease the memorization process of the work, which was originally oral literature. The ambiguity in the English translation relates to if the grammatical clause "for the purposes of nirvāṇa characterized by [...]" relates solely to "the coming [or] going of any dharma" or if it is the completion of the incomplete clause "the Fully Enlightened One, [...] who taught the doctrine [...]". My own meagre and insufficiently amateur linguistic analysis of the Sanskrit, however tentatively suggests that the structure of the sentence is "I salute the Fully Enlightened One, [...], who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, [...], for the purposes of nirvāṇa characterized by the auspicious cessation of hypostatization." The material omitted in that quotes is descriptive linguistic adjuncts designed to describe the subject of the dependant clause "who taught the doctrine of dependent origination". This is evident because pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ are both marked in the accusative case, marking them as the object of the phrase "yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam", the subject of which is "deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam" (I salute the Fully Enlightened One, best of orators, who taught). If anyone here is a Sanskrit buff it would be good to have a second pair of eyes look over that though, the grammar of the passage is somewhat impenetrable to non-specialists like myself.

A rendition that more accurately preserves the Sanskrik word-order, but is less easily intelligible for an English-speaker, of the opening quatrain might have been:
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||

Neither cessation, nor origination, neither annihilation, nor the eternal,
Neither singularity, nor plurality, neither the coming, nor the going,
The doctrine of dependent origination, for the auspicious cessation of hypostatization,
I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught [this].


Many times in the text Nāgārjuna equates the realization of liberation, or at the very least a vital step in that direction, with the cessation of hypostatizations. I think that from the perspective presented in the Mūlamadhyamikakārikā, it might be considered that the only way to non-hypostatize Nibbāna is to completely realize it (Nibbāna itself), or rather, it might be argued that the only way to non-hypostatize Nibbāna, to not form false mental construction(s) of it, might be the very experience of Awakening itself, of Cessation itself. The opening dedicatory refrain frames Nibbāna as the cessation of hypostatization, or rather, it is said therein that hypostatization-cessation "characterizes" Nibbāna, the cessation of hypostatization being the cessation of proliferations, and that is something that should be analyzed in light of the Pāli tradition. I am not altogether sure if Nāgārjuna thinks that it is possible at all to non-hypostatize Nibbāna until it has been fully realized, hence his critique of hypostatizations of Nibbāna.

Thank you again for your thorough and thoughtful exposition. Your presentation is consistent with my very green and neophyte understanding of Nagarjuna, which is entirely informed by readings of the source text in translation, and as I said before Eviatar Shulman. I have a copy of Siderits, here is how Kalupahana renders the first verse just for giggles:
I salute him, the fully enlightened, the best of speakers, who preached the non-ceasing and the non-arising, the non-annihilation and the non-permanence, the non-identity and the non-difference, the non-appearance and the non-disappearance, the dependent arising, the appeasement of obsessions and the auspicious
I too think the emphasis on prapañcopaśama is really the heart of what he was getting at, and why I personally enjoy reading him and about him as to make this concrete and personal, it has a way of settling my mind, which tends to fly off into philosophical la la land all too readily. And this emphasis is where I see a beautiful concordance and point of contact with the work of Venerable Nanananda who has written at length about papañca (see for example Concept and Reality). After all an epithet for Nibbana in the Pali texts is nipapañca.

Shulman's contention as I understand it is that Nagarjuna's commentators have all "softened" the blow of what he's saying to some extent, and he characterizes them as "madhyamaka realists." I think his argument boils down to the following: Nagarjuna was not just attacking inherent existence but existence in toto, along with non-existence, i.e. things that exist in dependence cannot be called existent or non existent at all (for various reasons). Yet they do obviously appear, as they are "enclosed in consciousness" and as such are like a dream, illusion, a fabrication of the mind. For Shulman the latter is as positive of a characterization of reality is Nagarjuna is willing to give. In his reading this doesn't lead to nihilism, for since the world is so constructed the importance of kamma, ethics, choice, walking the path, etc is all the more important. There are obviously "idealistic" leanings here though I think its wrong to characterize him as a metaphysical idealist, and the same can be said of Nanananda:
One has to ask: why did the Buddha say ‘manopubba- ṇgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā’ (Mind precedes all dhammas. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought – Dhp 1)? One has to admit that the Dhamma is mano-mūlika. But again, the mind is just one of the senses. What we have here is just a self-created problem. We discussed how existence is a perversion. The arising of dhammas is also the arising of dukkha. Not realizing this, some go looking for the truth among ‘things’.

The search goes on because of delusion, and it is fruitless because they are chasing illusions. Dhammas, things, are all fabricated. They are all relative. They are all results of maññanā (ideation). Just as those who were entrenched in self-view saw the Buddha as a nihilist, those who are entrenched in materialism cannot grasp the Buddhist philosophy which puts the mind first.

PS: Thank you for the PM I will get to that a bit later!
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
Way~Farer
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:38 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Way~Farer »

Thanks for the illuminating discussion.
Coëmgenu wrote:Many times in the text Nāgārjuna equates the realization of liberation, or at the very least a vital step in that direction, with the cessation of hypostatizations.
Hypostatisation being 'turning an abstraction into something concrete'. That also relates to the famous 'Honeyball Sutta'. Thinking develops its own reality, which you get tangled up in, and then become lost in abstractions which are taken to be real. Happens at every moment.
rajitha7
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:14 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by rajitha7 »

Well, it seems the difference is how both schools handle "Anatta" or the absolute void or emptiness.

Theravada takes an indirect and softly approach to Anatta. Newcomers often find it harder to grasp Anatta. The outcome of emptiness are the 2 truths i.e. ultimate and conventional truths. This is revealed only if needed in the Abhidhamma texts.

Nagarjuna takes the approach of Ven. Sariputta to Emptiness. Nagarjuna tackles Anatta (Sunatta) head on. Here, the 2-truths are at the forefront.

Sun-atta = An-atta. The use of "Sun" and "An" prefix quite possibly denote "lack of". So these terms are synonyms for lack of self - or Emptiness.

Theravada is how Buddha approached Emptiness. That suggests why Theravada school is more popular. It's more geared for the masses.
It's all -> here
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

rajitha7 wrote:Sun-atta = An-atta. The use of "Sun" and "An" prefix quite possibly denote "lack of".
The words are 'sunna-ta' ('empty-state') and 'an-atta' ('not-self'). The word 'atta' ('self') is not found in 'sunnata'.

Nagarjuna does not take the approach of Ven. Sariputta or the Lord Buddha to Emptiness. Nagarjuna intellectually used iddappaccayata (conditionality), which he wrongly termed 'dependent origination' ('pratitya-samutpada'), to derive Emptiness (thus erred in inferring the Emtpiness of Nibbana is Dependently Originated). 'Pratitya-samutpada' is the wrong term because pratitya-samutpada refers to the twelve links process that generates suffering (rather than the cause & effect that generates rocks, trees, mental cognition, etc). Where as Ven. Sariputta or the Lord Buddha saw directly all things, including Nibbana, are Empty of self simply because they are. If I take a rock and examine it, it is empty of self regardless of whether or not it is dependently originated. Seeing cause & effect & even seeing impermanence is not required to see emptiness (sunnata).
rajitha7
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:14 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by rajitha7 »

The Theravadin identify reality as;

Emptiness -> Dependent Origination -> Conventional Reality.
CecilN wrote:thus erred in inferring the Emptiness of Nibbana is Dependently Originated.
Are you suggesting Nagarjuna claimed thus?

Conventional Reality -> Dependent Origination -> Emptiness .

The complete opposite. If that is so Nagarjuna is way off track.
It's all -> here
CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by CecilN »

Theravada:

Buddha
The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

SN 35.85
Sariputta
And what is the emptiness mind-liberation? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness mind-liberation.

MN 43
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Aloka »

'
Another sutta about emptiness:

SN 22.95 Phena Sutta: Foam


On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam?

In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?

Continued at the link :

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I think Nagarjuna used the examples of foam and a bubble somewhere in his 'Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness' so he probably read the above sutta. However, according to Ian Mabbett:
There was very possibly, then, one original Nagarjuna, but to him was added a legend which ramified. This legend, in turn, inspired the adoption of the name of Nagarjuna by many later texts written at different times, and likely also by some later teachers in the tantric tradition.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... arjuna.htm

:anjali:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8159
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

Aloka wrote:
There was very possibly, then, one original Nagarjuna, but to him was added a legend which ramified. This legend, in turn, inspired the adoption of the name of Nagarjuna by many later texts written at different times, and likely also by some later teachers in the tantric tradition.

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... arjuna.htm
This late Nágárjuna is the 1200-or-so year old alchemist that I alluded to earlier who features heavily in some mytho-historical accounts of the origination of some late sútra in some Tibetan and late Indian accounts.

Some Tibetans believe, though not all by any stretch, that Nágárjuna is an either pseudo-immortal or long-lived alchemist who lived in India, wrote the earliest of texts attributed to Nágárjuna, used tantric body-alchemy to preserve his life (with the interest of studying Dhamma), met Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, etc, and eventually made his way to Tibet where he became a student of Saraha, a Vajrayána yogi, after which he allegedly helped to found Vajrayána Buddhism and established some Tantric practices by translating sútra delivered to him directly by Maitreya of the future, as well as being allegedly involved with the foundation of Buddhism in Tibet, I think.

I'm not exceptionally well-versed in the specifics of Nágárjuna-mythology, but it is likely that this legend forms around Indian historians confusing the mytho-historical accounts of multiple legendary figures who diversely bare the name "Nágárjuna" in various texts.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Aloka »

Coemgenu wrote: Some Tibetans believe, though not all by any stretch, that Nágárjuna is an either pseudo-immortal or long-lived alchemist....
Yes, Nagarajuna is often known in Tibetan Buddhism as the "Second Buddha" .

http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... a_Loy.html

- and just to confuse matters, Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava) is also refered to as the "Second Buddha" !

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Padmasambhava


.
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Post by Caodemarte »

Aloka wrote:There was very possibly, then, one original Nagarjuna, but to him was added a legend which ramified. This legend, in turn, inspired the adoption of the name of Nagarjuna by many later texts written at different times, and likely also by some later teachers in the tantric tradition...
There are two Indian Nagarjunas famous in Tibet. One is the philosopher; one is the Tantric practioner and probable alchemist/magician. They are often confused and surrounded by mythology. However, there is no reason to doubt their historical nature (minus the mythology) and much reason to believe in it (although it is kind of an irrelevant concern when discussing ideas).
Post Reply