Nagarjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Nagarjuna

Post by BlackBird »

Hello all

What does the community think about Nagarjuna? I have read that some Theravadin thinkers see Nargarjuna's writings as quite in line with Theravadin thought. Others feel it goes beyond the Nikayan interpretation. So I have 3 questions really:
  • To what extent are the writings of Nagarjuna in line with Theravadin thought?
  • Where, if at all do they differ?
  • Are there some good introductory materials on Nagarjuna?
Thank you in advance :anjali:

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by tiltbillings »

Nagarjuna is a bit overblown, but this essay might be of interest:
Attachments
emptiness.pdf
(150.98 KiB) Downloaded 189 times
>> 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
mudra
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by mudra »

tiltbillings wrote:Nagarjuna is a bit overblown, but this essay might be of interest:
I don't agree about Nagarjuna being overblown (as you might expect :smile: ), but I would like to thank you for posting that essay. Interesting.
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by pink_trike »

Here's an overview of Nagarjuna for those not familiar with his work:

http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dsantina/friend.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and this:

Nagarjuna was an early buddhist thinker whose importance is often overlooked. He was the first writer to systematize key concepts of Buddhism. Although he founded a Mahayana school, the Madhyamika ("Middle Way"), his importance comes from his thought. In his Memorial Verses on the Middle Way, Nagarjuna interprets the Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom. His central argument elaborates the concepts of Emptiness and impermanence. He shows that each "thing" exists only relation to other "things." Since each thing changes, its relationship to other things changes. These changes reveal that nothing stays the same, nothing is permanent or fixed. Whereas Theravada believed this as the nature of human beings, Nagarjuna made it clear that this applied to all the cosmos. Thus nothing in the cosmos was fixed or permanent other than the existence of the cosmos itself. The metphorical term he used to describe this notion was "Emptiness" or "Void.

I also don't agree that his work is "overblown"...perhaps Tilt's view is reflective of a long-standing overblown rivalry between Theravada and Mahayana.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
mudra
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:33 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by mudra »

Blackbird, not sure that this is an introductory but the text is explained well and cuts to the core of Arya Nagarjuna's presentation on Emptiness:
http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Sevent ... 0937938394

If you are interested also try and find a good commentary in English on the Mulamadhyamakakarika (The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way,
there is this but I have to be honest I haven't read this yet:
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamental-Wisdo ... 0195093364" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a very short "biography" of Arya Nagarjuna can be found here:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... =nagarjuna
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by tiltbillings »

pink_trike wrote:Nagarjuna was an early buddhist thinker whose importance is often overlooked.
Over looked by whom? Not by the Mahayanists for whom Nagarjuna is a central and foundational figure, and not by the Theravadins for whom Nagarjuna is not a necessary figure at all.
He was the first writer to systematize key concepts of Buddhism.
Not in the least. This was done by the Abhidhamma-ists/Abhidharma-ists and the commentators well before Nagarjuna.
. . . Since each thing changes, its relationship to other things changes. These changes reveal that nothing stays the same, nothing is permanent or fixed. Whereas Theravada believed this as the nature of human beings, Nagarjuna made it clear that this applied to all the cosmos.
And this is the typical Mahayana polemic addressed against the straw man of their construct, the supposed hinayana. For the Theravada, all dhammas are empty of self-existence.
I also don't agree that his work is "overblown"...perhaps Tilt's view is reflective of a long-standing overblown rivalry between Theravada and Mahayana.
The point is that Nagarjuna’s thought is not necessary for the Theravada, and the criticism of the supposed hinayana does not apply to the Theravada.
>> 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
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by pink_trike »

tiltbillings wrote:
pink_trike wrote:Nagarjuna was an early buddhist thinker whose importance is often overlooked.
Over looked by whom? Not by the Mahayanists for whom Nagarjuna is a central and foundational figure, and not by the Theravadins for whom Nagarjuna is not a necessary figure at all.
He was the first writer to systematize key concepts of Buddhism.
Not in the least. This was done by the Abhidhamma-ists/Abhidharma-ists and the commentators well before Nagarjuna.
. . . Since each thing changes, its relationship to other things changes. These changes reveal that nothing stays the same, nothing is permanent or fixed. Whereas Theravada believed this as the nature of human beings, Nagarjuna made it clear that this applied to all the cosmos.
And this is the typical Mahayana polemic addressed against the straw man of their construct, the supposed hinayana. For the Theravada, all dhammas are empty of self-existence.
I also don't agree that his work is "overblown"...perhaps Tilt's view is reflective of a long-standing overblown rivalry between Theravada and Mahayana.
The point is that Nagarjuna’s thought is not necessary for the Theravada, and the criticism of the supposed hinayana does not apply to the Theravada.
I'm not interested in this old war :tongue:
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by tiltbillings »

pink_trike wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
pink_trike wrote:Nagarjuna was an early buddhist thinker whose importance is often overlooked.
Over looked by whom? Not by the Mahayanists for whom Nagarjuna is a central and foundational figure, and not by the Theravadins for whom Nagarjuna is not a necessary figure at all.
He was the first writer to systematize key concepts of Buddhism.
Not in the least. This was done by the Abhidhamma-ists/Abhidharma-ists and the commentators well before Nagarjuna.
. . . Since each thing changes, its relationship to other things changes. These changes reveal that nothing stays the same, nothing is permanent or fixed. Whereas Theravada believed this as the nature of human beings, Nagarjuna made it clear that this applied to all the cosmos.
And this is the typical Mahayana polemic addressed against the straw man of their construct, the supposed hinayana. For the Theravada, all dhammas are empty of self-existence.
I also don't agree that his work is "overblown"...perhaps Tilt's view is reflective of a long-standing overblown rivalry between Theravada and Mahayana.
The point is that Nagarjuna’s thought is not necessary for the Theravada, and the criticism of the supposed hinayana does not apply to the Theravada.
I'm not interested in this old war
I would hope you would be interested in accurate information concerning Nagarjuna vis a vis Theravada, which is not what is reflected in your above msg.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by tiltbillings »

BlackBird wrote: [*]Are there some good introductory materials on Nagarjuna?[/list]
If you have a strong interest in looking at Nagarjuna's thought, getting a couple of books rather than just the internet would be worthwhile. A few books to consider concerning Nagarjuna:

Stephan Batchelor’s VERSES FROM THE CENTER is worth every penny and well worth the time spent just for the introductory essay about Nagarjuna. It is luminous.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE MIDDLE WAY by David J. Kalupahana. This can be gotten cheaply now from Motilal. It is not a perfect study, but it is an interesting and useful study of Nagarjuna from the standpoint of the Nikayas/Agamas. http://www.mlbd.com/BookDecription.aspx?id=848" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jay Garfield’s THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE MIDDLE WAY is an excellent exposition from the Gelugpa Tibetan standpoint.

Rupert Gethin’s THE FOUNDATIONS OF BUDDHISM does a nice job of putting Nagarjuna into a broader Indian Buddhist context.

And if you can find a copy, Frederick J. Streng’s EMPTINESS: A STUDY IN RELIGIOUS MEANING, is one of the best studies of Nagarjuna’s key work.
>> 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
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by Dan74 »

To what extent are the writings of Nagarjuna in line with Theravadin thought?
Where, if at all do they differ?
This is :offtopic: sorry, but I am wondering just how useful our usual "same or different" mentality is when it comes to the Dhamma?

If they are in line, then what?

If they are not in line, then what?

What does it mean for your practice? Do you know why there may be a difference? How can we tell which side is right? Are both right? Neither?

It's like when a person hears an accent and ask me where I am from. Very likely they have little idea what kind of place that is, so the answer conveys no information. But they may feel like they know something now.

So what do you think you know? And how much of this knowledge is helpful for practice, how much is actually in the way?

Apologies for the rant... :focus:

_/|\_
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,

It's useful if you want to know whether something is worth the time to study... particularly when I assume Blackbird will also ultimately be interested in reading as much of the Sutta Pitaka as possible. It's about priorities and expected 'return on investment'.

:reading:

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."
enkidu
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by enkidu »

Dan74 wrote: This is :offtopic: sorry, but I am wondering just how useful our usual "same or different" mentality is when it comes to the Dhamma?

If they are in line, then what?

If they are not in line, then what?

What does it mean for your practice? Do you know why there may be a difference? How can we tell which side is right? Are both right? Neither?
As a gelug practitioner regularly reading this forum, I go through this exercise several times a day.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by Dan74 »

Hi retro!

I think it's very hard to know in advance which bit of dhamma/dharma will touch that string, inspire or even trigger an insight...

Sure, there are sensible progressions, but they can be very dry... It's not like academic study, is it?

_/|\_

PS Hi enkidu! :smile:

Sifting through so many words? Doesn't it get a bit... tiresome? (I guess I am speaking from experience here... :embarassed: )

_/|\_
_/|\_
enkidu
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by enkidu »

Dan74 wrote: PS Hi enkidu! :smile:

Sifting through so many words? Doesn't it get a bit... tiresome?

_/|\_
It can be a bit exhausting, but it's been fruitful. I appreciate the verbosity around here. The part that wears me out is evaluating whether or not to respond to a thread and how to do so without saying something non-cannonical to Theravada. The result of this evaluation is usually my silence. Hah.
Paññāsikhara
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna

Post by Paññāsikhara »

BlackBird wrote:Hello all

What does the community think about Nagarjuna?
A very very interesting figure in the development of Buddhism, particularly in mainland India, and in the (Madhyamaka) Mahayana.
I have read that some Theravadin thinkers see Nargarjuna's writings as quite in line with Theravadin thought. Others feel it goes beyond the Nikayan interpretation. So I have 3 questions really:
  • To what extent are the writings of Nagarjuna in line with Theravadin thought?
  • Where, if at all do they differ?
  • Are there some good introductory materials on Nagarjuna?
Thank you in advance :anjali:

metta
Jack
To what extent are the writings of Nagarjuna in line with Theravadin thought?

What do you mean by "Theravadin"? If it is the commentaries of the Theras, their Abhidhamma, and so forth, then there is quite a distance between them. If you mean sutra based Sthaviras, then there is a lot of overlap. However, I agree with Walser, and think that a look into the south-eastern Mahasamghikas may be the best place to start looking. There are strong connections, though over divergent, between the Mahavihara and the Andhakas.

Where, if at all do they differ?

Long story, really. Again, this partly depends on how you define "Theravada", here.
Nagarjuna is refuting svabhava metaphysics, only where the term "svabhava" is read as "own being", taking the "bhu" as being / arising. This basically wasn't how the Abhidhammikas used the term, though, so there is some amount of confusion.
He is giving strong emphasis to the general principles of dependent origination, as the way to refute such svabhava and also parabhava, sva-parabhava theories. This is clear in the opening verses of the Mulamadhyamaka Karika (MMK).

Though the MMK doesn't mention it, other works of Nagarjuna are strongly Mahayana, and advocate the Bodhisattva path. This is well before the Theravadin Dhammapala wrote anything about it, by maybe 500 years.

Are there some good introductory materials on Nagarjuna?

Much material on Nagarjuna is heavily influenced by later Indian and Tibetan understandings and renderings, particularly the use of Candrakirti. eg. Garfield's book, Murti, etc. Due to source bias in western scholars, they almost always overlook the earliest sources we have on this, namely the Zhong Lun, translation of the Madhyamakakarika by Kumarajiva, in ~400, with it's commentary (centuries before Candrakirti, etc.) Kalupahana avoids these biases, but introduces his own - trying to read Nagarjuna as if he were a Theravadin refuting the Sarvastivadins and Sauntrantikas (and confuses these last two in a rather drastic way).

One of the best books at present may just be Joseph Walser, Nagarjuna in Context. Somewhere on the web, you can download the whole book in PDF (though watch out, the endnotes are a mess - the numbers don't match up!) It's a new book, and covers all the older material. Tilt is pretty familiar with (parts of?) this book, too.

* I'll take this time to add, I really do not think that Nagarjuna's MMK bases its philosophy of sunyata on the Prajnaparamita sutra. There are some overlaps, but most of the reason for such ideas is quite problematic. This is part of my PhD, but I won't bore you all with the details, here. :P
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Post Reply