Another restatement of the Mahayana view ( or at least Mahayana Naif ) which thinks its is radical.Individual wrote:If you regard people as Theravada-"ins" and Mahayana-"ists", thinking and judging in these terms, aren't you basically adopting a form of sakaya-ditthi, which is contrary to the teachings of both schools of thought?PeterB wrote:I think the fact that Nagarjuna is a Mahayanist is ABSOLUTELY the point.
As I see it, Theravadins and Mahayanists are just like Republicans and Democrats.
Wait, that might offend people... Sorry... We're ALL Democrats here (no Republicans here except me).
Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
It depends greatly on how Nagarjuna is interpreted.....and he is interpreted in a number of very distinct ways.
We have been having quite a robust debate about this on the Mahayana Dharma Wheel.
My own position is that I think that it is very clear that he is responding to Sarvastivadan realism, and in that sense, he is clarifying the position of earlier Buddhisms rather than refuting them or presenting a radical break.
As someone pointed out earlier on this thread, the Buddha did not make strong metaphysical assertions about the nature of phenomenal world; this started to occur during the period of Abhidharma scholasticism.
In this respect, I think that Nagarjuna's main intent is to point out that all of the core Buddhist teachings (for example the four noble truths) are premised on the logic of dependent origination. It is only on the basis of dependent origination that a soteriological path leading from samsara to nirvana is possible; that an ethics of kusala cultivation can be established.
So in many respects I think that if one is well grounded in the Pali suttas, a likely response to Nagarjuna would be something like "So? Of course!"
We have been having quite a robust debate about this on the Mahayana Dharma Wheel.
My own position is that I think that it is very clear that he is responding to Sarvastivadan realism, and in that sense, he is clarifying the position of earlier Buddhisms rather than refuting them or presenting a radical break.
As someone pointed out earlier on this thread, the Buddha did not make strong metaphysical assertions about the nature of phenomenal world; this started to occur during the period of Abhidharma scholasticism.
In this respect, I think that Nagarjuna's main intent is to point out that all of the core Buddhist teachings (for example the four noble truths) are premised on the logic of dependent origination. It is only on the basis of dependent origination that a soteriological path leading from samsara to nirvana is possible; that an ethics of kusala cultivation can be established.
So in many respects I think that if one is well grounded in the Pali suttas, a likely response to Nagarjuna would be something like "So? Of course!"
Last edited by tobes on Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
The Pāli dhamma is every bit as radical, if not moreso, than anything of importance that Nāgārjuna ever said.tobes wrote:It depends greatly on how Nagarjuna is interpreted.....and he is interpreted in a number of very distinct ways.
We have been having quite a robust debate about this on the Mahayana Dharma Wheel.
All the best,
Geoff
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Hence, Tobes' final sentence... "So in many respects I think that if one is well grounded in the Pali suttas, a likely response to Nagarjuna would be something like "So? Of course!""
Metta,
Retro.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
The reference was to Tobes characterization of "radical" in the context of the discussion on Dharma Wheel. I'm suggesting that both the Pāli dhamma and Nāgārjuna are more "radical" than Tobes interpretation. Certainly, the view presented in the Pāli Tipiṭaka accords with what Nāgārjuna was getting at. Ven. Ñāṇananda:
Geoff
- Teachers like Nāgārjuna brought to light what was already there [in the Pāli suttas] but was hidden from view. Unfortunately his later followers turned it in to a vāda....
When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven. Nāgārjuna’s sanity. 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.
Geoff
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Link, please.Ñāṇa wrote:The reference was to Tobes characterization of "radical" in the context of the discussion on Dharma Wheel.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Thanks.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
We are in your debt ( and Ven Nananada's of course ) once more Geoff.Ñāṇa wrote:The reference was to Tobes characterization of "radical" in the context of the discussion on Dharma Wheel. I'm suggesting that both the Pāli dhamma and Nāgārjuna are more "radical" than Tobes interpretation. Certainly, the view presented in the Pāli Tipiṭaka accords with what Nāgārjuna was getting at. Ven. Ñāṇananda:
All the best,
- Teachers like Nāgārjuna brought to light what was already there [in the Pāli suttas] but was hidden from view. Unfortunately his later followers turned it in to a vāda....
When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubting Ven. Nāgārjuna’s sanity. 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.
Geoff
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Isn't Nagarjuna the guy who said that the Pali Tipitaka is incomplete and that he had retrieved the true Tipitaka from the Naga realm?
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Yes.waterchan wrote:Isn't Nagarjuna the guy who said that the Pali Tipitaka is incomplete and that he had retrieved the true Tipitaka from the Naga realm?
ROFL.
Approximately five hundred years after the Buddha.
But other Mahayanists also had other interpretations too.
Kevin
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
The main problem with Nagarjuna is that he adds several levels of mind spin without offering anything useful. A clever enough person could do that forever. In fact, volumes of pointless mind spin have been written.
I don't bother with it.
I don't bother with it.
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Well, Nagarjuna's work was just a commentary when all said and done. The real genius had already been done by the founder and expounder.
It's like trying to compare an art critic to an artist. (The creator versus the analyst).
It's like trying to compare an art critic to an artist. (The creator versus the analyst).
Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?
Well said. I like that expression, mind spin. Cause that's exactly what it is.alan wrote:The main problem with Nagarjuna is that he adds several levels of mind spin without offering anything useful. A clever enough person could do that forever. In fact, volumes of pointless mind spin have been written.
I don't bother with it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa