Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23095
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Zan,
retrofuturist wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:32 am I would recommend reading "The Heretic Sage"... a short series of interviews with ven. Nanananda.
zan wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:04 pm Thanks! At a cursory glance it seems like the Venerable in the article agrees with Nagarjuna? Am I reading it wrong?
I'll be wary of what I say, mindful of the section we're in, but the key takeaway from ven. Nanananda's comments is that whilst Nagarjuna knew his stuff, Nanananda found that he didn't need to quote Nagarjuna or any other Mahayana resources in his Nibbana Sermons, because the relevant points which those resources might try to highlight, are already adequately and more appropriately covered in the Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
zan
Posts: 993
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by zan »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:35 am Greetings Zan,
retrofuturist wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:32 am I would recommend reading "The Heretic Sage"... a short series of interviews with ven. Nanananda.
zan wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 3:04 pm Thanks! At a cursory glance it seems like the Venerable in the article agrees with Nagarjuna? Am I reading it wrong?
I'll be wary of what I say, mindful of the section we're in, but the key takeaway from ven. Nanananda's comments is that whilst Nagarjuna knew his stuff, Nanananda found that he didn't need to quote Nagarjuna or any other Mahayana resources in his Nibbana Sermons, because the relevant points which those resources might try to highlight, are already adequately and more appropriately covered in the Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Paul. :)
So he agreed? That's not good lol! I want someone to definitively disagree and prove it wrong.

What of nibbana being this ineffable, unconditioned thing that is beyond normal understanding? Wouldn't that automatically put it beyond reasoning and make any attempt to posit it to be conditioned or empty or temporary or whatever else fail before they began?

Likewise, wouldn't any attempt to include it in dependent origination automatically be incorrect since it is unconditioned, unoriginated, etc.?
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23095
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings zan,
zan wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:50 am So he agreed? That's not good lol! I want someone to definitively disagree and prove it wrong.
This sounds like attachment to views.
zan wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:50 am What of nibbana being this ineffable, unconditioned thing that is beyond normal understanding? Wouldn't that automatically put it beyond reasoning and make any attempt to posit it to be conditioned or empty or temporary or whatever else fail before they began?

Likewise, wouldn't any attempt to include it in dependent origination automatically be incorrect since it is unconditioned, unoriginated, etc.?
To my earlier point, ven. Nanananda taught extensively on Nibbana and Paticcasamuppada, and he did so with reference to the Suttas. Maybe if you want to know how to assess different positions that take different works as definitive (e.g. Theravada commentaries, Nagarjuna, Abhidhamma etc.), you might want to invest the time reading his primary works on nibbana and paticcasamuppada.

However, if your purpose here is to satiate your attachment to views, rather than to actually learn and understand, then you can disregard the above advice, as you would merely be wasting your time by reading those works through that lens.

Kind regards.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
zan
Posts: 993
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by zan »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:57 am Greetings zan,
zan wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:50 am So he agreed? That's not good lol! I want someone to definitively disagree and prove it wrong.
This sounds like attachment to views.
zan wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:50 am What of nibbana being this ineffable, unconditioned thing that is beyond normal understanding? Wouldn't that automatically put it beyond reasoning and make any attempt to posit it to be conditioned or empty or temporary or whatever else fail before they began?

Likewise, wouldn't any attempt to include it in dependent origination automatically be incorrect since it is unconditioned, unoriginated, etc.?
To my earlier point, ven. Nanananda taught extensively on Nibbana and Paticcasamuppada, and he did so with reference to the Suttas. Maybe if you want to know how to assess different positions that take different works as definitive (e.g. Theravada commentaries, Nagarjuna, Abhidhamma etc.), you might want to invest the time reading his primary works on nibbana and paticcasamuppada.

However, if your purpose here is to satiate your attachment to views, rather than to actually learn and understand, then you can disregard the above advice, as you would merely be wasting your time by reading those works through that lens.

Kind regards.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Thank you, I'll look into them. I see what you're saying about views! So let's forget me for a moment.

In your understanding, is escape from Samsara possible?

If so, how, when Samsara and nibbana are one?

If not, why bother studying dhamma?
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
santa100
Posts: 4329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote:I haven't seen any of those teachers in 20 years nor been to those temples.

Regardless, it is totally inappropriate for you to be baselessly accusing me of lying.

You've always struck me as articulate, intelligent and very sophisticsted and reasonable and I've always valued your input. This is highly disappointing and decidedly uncharacteristic of you.
Since you seem to have been following many of my posts, you should know that I've never ever claimed anything without providing backup evidence. And the evidences are quite clear in this case, as usual and without exception. First you made a dishonest attempt to paint all Mahayana teachers as corrupted, drugs and alcoholic-advocates. Only after I've clearly pointed this out that you admitted that you are wrong. There are only 34 posts in this thread and everyone can easily go back and see that for themselves. Second, there certainly seems to be a case of dishonesty when you completely bent/distorted my martial art analogy and suggested that I was implying that Mahayana being superior than Theravada, while in fact, my intention was simply and clearly just to tell you to move on if you didn't find Nagarjuna's explanation makes sense to you. Lastly, you claim to be quite into the orthodox teaching of the Buddha, and yet the very core of your intention on this very thread is to find a way to bend the Buddha's word to suit Nagarjuna's doctrine. So, I have to ask you this, what is it exactly that you want out of this thread that you created? Please be 100% explicit.
Last edited by santa100 on Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 4930
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote: treat my writings like word games, nothing more.
you treat it that way, perhaps


we think of it as karmic
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 23095
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings zan,
zan wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:07 am In your understanding, is escape from Samsara possible?

If so, how, when Samsara and nibbana are one?

If not, why bother studying dhamma?
I believe I already addressed this matter in your other topic.

Please be mindful also that this section has specific guidelines, which (for the purposes of focus, and providing a dedicated space for exploring the Mahavihara viewpoint) place limitations on what can be said.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
zan
Posts: 993
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by zan »

santa100 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:44 am
zan wrote:I haven't seen any of those teachers in 20 years nor been to those temples.

Regardless, it is totally inappropriate for you to be baselessly accusing me of lying.

You've always struck me as articulate, intelligent and very sophisticsted and reasonable and I've always valued your input. This is highly disappointing and decidedly uncharacteristic of you.
Since you seem to have been following many of my posts, you should know that I've never ever claimed anything without providing backup evidence. And the evidences are quite clear in this case, as usual and without exception. First you made a dishonest attempt to paint all Mahayana teachers as corrupted, drugs and alcoholic-advocates. Only after I've clearly pointed this out that you admitted that you are wrong. There are only 34 posts in this thread and everyone can easily go back and see that for themselves. Second, there certainly seems to be a case of dishonesty when you completely bent/distorted my martial art analogy and suggested that I was implying that Mahayana being superior than Theravada, while in fact, my intention was simply just to tell you to move on if you didn't find Nagarjuna's explanation makes sense to you. Lastly, you claim to be quite into the orthodox teaching of the Buddha, and yet the very core of your intention on this very thread is to find a way to bend the Buddha's word to suit Nagarjuna's doctrine. So, I have to ask you this, what is it exactly that you want out of this thread that you created?
This is totally inappropriate and full of exaggerations and distortions and aggressive, baseless accusations of dishonesty. You have dramatically misconstrued my words and intentions and so I'll not dignify it with a response. Apologies you percieved my words as hurtful or something. Their actual meaning and intent are starkly different from your perceptions. I'm disappointed. I really liked you. Didn't know you had this side to you. Have a nice life and much metta to you.
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
zan
Posts: 993
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by zan »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:56 am Greetings zan,
zan wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:07 am In your understanding, is escape from Samsara possible?

If so, how, when Samsara and nibbana are one?

If not, why bother studying dhamma?
I believe I already addressed this matter in your other topic.

Please be mindful also that this section has specific guidelines, which (for the purposes of focus, and providing a dedicated space for exploring the Mahavihara viewpoint) place limitations what can be said.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Thank you! Apologies for bending the guidelines. I'll stop now. I give up lol! Thanks to you and everyone else for the thoughtful responses.
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
santa100
Posts: 4329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote:This is totally inappropriate and full of exaggerations and distortions and aggressive, baseless accusations of dishonesty. You have dramatically misconstrued my words and intentions and so I'll not dignify it with a response. Apologies you percieved my words as hurtful or something. Their actual meaning and intent are starkly different from your perceptions. I'm disappointed. I really liked you. Didn't know you had this side to you. Have a nice life and much metta to you.
I don't need your apologies, nor your kind friendly words. I'm not here on a Theravada forum to socialize or make friends. You should already knew that since you claim to have been following many of my posts. I'm here for the truth of the Buddha's teaching. And so far you have done nothing useful, not even answering a simple question to clarify the exact intent and purpose to your very own thread! And since you did not answer the question, don't blame people for misconstruing what you've been saying on this thread.
zan
Posts: 993
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by zan »

santa100 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 am
zan wrote:This is totally inappropriate and full of exaggerations and distortions and aggressive, baseless accusations of dishonesty. You have dramatically misconstrued my words and intentions and so I'll not dignify it with a response. Apologies you percieved my words as hurtful or something. Their actual meaning and intent are starkly different from your perceptions. I'm disappointed. I really liked you. Didn't know you had this side to you. Have a nice life and much metta to you.
I don't need your apologies, nor your kind friendly words. I'm not here on a Theravada forum to socialize or make friends. You should already knew that since you claim to have been following many of my posts. I'm here for the truth of the Buddha's teaching. And so far you have done nothing useful, not even answering a simple question to clarify the exact intent and purpose to your very own thread! And since you did not answer the question, don't blame people for misconstruing what you've been saying on this thread.
Never claimed to follow your posts. Just seen you around and liked your style when I saw your answers randomly on threads and you've answered some of my threads really well. You are the only person on this thread that is confused and has my intent and purpose backwards. It is abundantly clear in the op. Perhaps reread the op more carefully.

That said, you've been unreasonable and rude so I'll not be responding to you any longer. Thanks for sharing so much wisdom with me and others on other threads in the past! You've got great logic and a sharp mind. Much metta.
I am just a learner. Keep that in mind when you read my words.

Just to be safe, assume all of my words could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
santa100
Posts: 4329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote:Never claimed to follow your posts. Just seen you around and liked your style when I saw your answers randomly on threads and you've answered some of my threads really well. You are the only person on this thread that is confused and has my intent and purpose backwards. It is abundantly clear in the op. Perhaps reread the op more carefully.

That said, you've been unreasonable and rude so I'll not be responding to you any longer. Thanks for sharing so much wisdom with me and others on other threads in the past! You've got great logic and a sharp mind. Much metta.
No need to say thanks. If there're questions, there will be answers. If there're wrong views, there will be right views. Nothing personal. I'd much rather have you say the nastiest words toward me while answering my direct question, than all words of compliment while eel-wriggling.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3881
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by robertk »

sentinel wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:16 pm
robertk wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:04 am Doodoot gave a summary and one point was that , according to Nargarjuna, there was nothing that is real, no sabhava.
A rather unlikely 'truth' I would say, and in conflict with Theravada.
What does "real" refers to according to nagarjuna ? and what "truth" you meant ?
I am no authority on Nagarjuna but have read his adherents saying that nothing is real. Perhaps doodoot can find something as it was in his recent post that he gave this point.

For more on the Theravada position:
I managed to find a letter by Venerable Dhammanando where he had
copied out the passage regarding a phrase in the Path of Discrimination:
MAHANAMA ON "MATERIALITY IS EMPTY WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL ESSENCE"
(from the Saddhammappakaasinii, Su––akathaa-va.n.nanaa)

Tattha 'jaata.m ruupan' ti paccuppanna.m ruupa.m.

Here [i.e. in the passage he is commenting on] 'born [or 'arisen'] materiality' is the materiality [existing in] the present.

[elsewhere he explains that it refers to materiality at the moment of stasis -- thiti -- in between arising and dissolution]

FIRST GLOSS

'Sabhaavena su––an' ti ettha saya.m bhaavo sabhaavo, sayameva uppaado' ti attho.

'Empty regarding individual essence': here individual essence is 'essence by itself'; arising just of itself is the meaning.

[Here Mahanama appears to take 'empty regarding sabhaava' as being denial of a false conception of sabhaava, namely a sabhaava which is its own cause. The 199 dhammas lack such a sabhaava]

SECOND GLOSS

Sato vaa bhaavo sabhaavo, attatoyeva uppaado' ti attho. Paccayaayattavuttittaa paccaya.m vinaa sayameva bhaavo, attato eva vaa bhaavo etasmi.m natthiiti sabhaavena su––a.m, sayameva bhaavena, attato eva vaa bhaavena su––anti vutta.m hoti.

Or, individual essence is own essence; arising solely by itself. Because of existence in dependence on conditions there is in it no essence by itself or essence of its own, thus it is 'empty regarding individual essence'. What is meant is that it is empty of essence by itself or of its own essence.

[This is simply the corollary to the first gloss, being the denial of a sabhaava that is not dependent on other conditions]

THIRD GLOSS

Atha vaa sakassa bhaavo sabhaavo. Pathaviidhaatuaadiisu hi anekesu ruupaaruupadhammesu ekeko dhammo para.m upaadaaya sako naama. 'bhaavo' ti ca dhammapariyaayavacanameta.m. Ekassa ca dhammassa a––o bhaavasan.khaato dhammo natthi, tasmaa sakassa a––ena bhaavena su––a.m, sako a––ena bhaavena su––oti attho. Tena ekassa dhammassa ekasabhaavataa vuttaa hoti.

Or else it is the essence that it itself has; for each single dhamma among the various dhammas beginning with the earth principle is itself, and 'essence' is a figurative term for dhamma; and each single dhamma does not have any other dhamma called an 'essence', therefore it is empty of any essence other than itself: the meaning is that it itself is empty of another essence. Hence what is meant is that a single dhamma has a single individual essence.

[If I understand this correctly, any given dhamma is empty of the sabhaavas that would characterize other dhammas, but is not empty of whatever makes it what it is. Karuna, for example, is empty of the quality of promoting cruelty but is not empty of the quality of allaying suffering]

FOURTH GLOSS

Atha vaa 'sabhaavena su––an' ti su––asabhaaveneva su––a.m. Ki.m vutta.m hoti? Su––asu––ataaya eva su––a.m, na a––aahi pariyaayasu––ataahi su–– anti vutta.m hoti.

Or alternatively 'empty regarding individual essence' is to be taken as empty through having emptiness as its individual essence. What is meant? What is meant is empty owing to emptiness-as-emptiness and not empty according to some other implicated emptiness.

['Emptiness-as-emptiness' is the first of the 25 emptinesses, described thus: "Eye is empty of self or what belongs to self, or of what is permanent or stable or eternal or not subject to change. Ear...nose...tongue...body...mind is empty of self or what belongs to self, or of what is permanent or stable or eternal or not subject to change." The reference is to the nature common to all dhammas, as opposed to the specific nature that makes a dhamma whatever it is. 'Implicated emptiness' refers to the fact that every dhamma is by its nature empty of any characteristic that would make it something other than what it is. E.g. "Past formations are empty of future and presently arisen formations. Future formations are empty of past formations...etc."]

WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF "MATERIALITY IS EMPTY WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL
ESSENCE"

Sace pana keci vadeyyu.m "sako bhaavo sabhaavo, tena sabhaavena su–– an" ti. Ki.m vutta.m hoti? Bhaavoti dhammo, so para.m upaadaaya sapadena visesito sabhaavo naama hoti. Dhammassa kassaci avijjamaanattaa "jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena su––an" ti ruupassa avijjamaanataa vuttaa hotiiti.

But if someone should say: "Own essence is individual essence; it is empty of that individual essence. What is meant? A dhamma is called an 'essence'; that [essence] is distinguished by the prefix 'individual' in comparison with any other and is thus called 'individual essence'. Because of the non-existence of any dhamma whatever it is the non-existence of materiality that is expressed by the words 'born materiality is empty regarding individual essence'."

[Mahanama does not specify whom he has in mind who might say such a thing. The claim as it stands is not clearly attributable to any Buddhist school that I know of. However, the anonymous author of the 'Clarifier of the Meanings of Knotty Terms in the Path of Discrimination' (Patisambhidaamaggamuulaganthipadatthavannanaa) expands on the above, adding the words 'in the highest sense' (paramatthato). So if he is right, then the wrong interpretation would appear to be a Mahayanic one, namely, that owing to emptiness of sabhaava, in the highest sense dhammas do not exist]

FIRST REFUTATION

Eva.m sati "jaata.m ruupan" tivacanena virujjhati. Na hi uppaadarahita.m jaata.m naama hoti. Nibbaana–hi uppaadarahita.m, ta.m jaata.m naama na hoti, jaatijaraamara.naani ca uppaadarahitaani jaataani naama na honti. Tenevettha "jaataa jaati sabhaavena su––aa, jaata.m jaraamara.na.m sabhaavena su––an" ti eva.m anuddharitvaa bhavameva avasaana.m katvaa niddi.t.tha.m.

[snip Nyanamoli's trans. as it doesn't seem to make any sense. I'll post a new translation when I have time. Or perhaps someone else would like to have a go at it]

SECOND REFUTATION

Yadi uppaadarahitassaapi "jaatan" tivacana.m yujjeyya, "jaataa jaati, jaata.m jaraamara.nan" ti vattabba.m bhaveyya. Yasmaa uppaadarahitesu jaatijaraamara.nesu "jaatan" tivacana.m na vutta.m, tasmaa "sabhaavena su––a.m avijjamaanan" ti vacana.m avijjamaanassa uppaadarahitattaa "jaatan" tivacanena virujjhati.

[ditto]

THIRD REFUTATION

Avijjamaanassa ca "su––an" tivacana.m he.t.thaa vuttena lokavacanena ca bhagavato vacanena ca –aayasaddaganthavacanena ca virujjhati, anekaahi ca yuttiihi virujjhati, tasmaa ta.m vacana.m kacavaramiva cha.d.ditabba.m.

And the word 'empty' for what is non-existent contradicts both worldly usage and the Blessed One's usage above, and also the words of the books of logic and linguistics; and it contradicts many logical arguments. Therefore that assertion should be discarded like rubbish.

"Ya.m, bhikkhave, atthisammata.m loke pa.n.ditaana.m, ahampi ta.m atthiiti vadaami. Ya.m, bhikkhave, natthisammata.m loke pa.n.ditaana.m, ahampi ta.m natthiiti vadaami. Ki–ca, bhikkhave, atthisammata.m loke pa.n.ditaana.m, yamaha.m atthiiti vadaami? Ruupa.m, bhikkhave, anicca.m dukkha.m vipari.naamadhamma.m atthisammata.m loke pa.n.ditaana.m, ahampi ta.m atthiiti vadaamii" tiaadiihi anekehi buddhavacanappamaa.nehi.

In many passages in the Buddha-word such as this: "Bhikkhus, what sages in the world say is not, of that too I say that it is not; what sages in the world say is, of that too I say that it is....Sages in the world say of impermanent, painful and changeable materiality that it is, and I too say of it that it is."

Anekaahi ca yuttiihi dhammaa sakakkha.ne vijjamaanaa evaati ni.t.thamettha gantabba.m.

And in many logical arguments [it is demonstrable that] dhammas exist in their own moments. Thus should this [abovementioned assertion] be refuted.
For an easily digested summary of reality in the Theravada "
The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA
Y. Karunadasa

The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 (Buddhist Publication society)

Karunadasa:

"Because pannattis are without corresponding objective reality, the commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a real nature -- to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.Since sabhava, the intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the point of view of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an abhava, a non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this fact that the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- origination (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are not applied to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated only of those things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical reality.

Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought about by conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are also defined as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive production (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have their own individual nature (avenika-sabhava). Only a dhamma that has an own- nature, with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, and marked by the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is positively produced.

Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta). For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described. Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality."
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3881
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by robertk »

Samyutta Nikaya 22.94 reads, in part:
“Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.
...
[agree that form that is permanent, etc, does not exist ...]
...
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.
...
Bhikkhu Bodhi: "The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being."
Caodemarte
Posts: 1077
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Is classical Theravada mostly proven false by Nagarjuna?

Post by Caodemarte »

Nagarjuna does not argue for the non-existence of the world, or that nothing is real. In fact, he criticizes this view.
Post Reply