Nāgārjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

All Nāgārjuna quotes taken either from Mūlamadhyamakakārikā or Ratnāvalī

Image
"If by renouncing a lesser happiness
One may realize a greater happiness
Let the wise one renounce the lesser
Having regard for the greater

Dhp 21.290
Image
"“His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna. "

MN 140
"Knowing that whatever is felt — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure nor pain, within or without — is stressful, deceptive..."

Sn 3.12
Image

Image
“Master Gotama, is pain self-made?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa.”

“Then is it other-made?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa.”

“Then is it both self-made and other-made?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa.”

“Then is it the case that pain, without self-making or other-making, is spontaneously arisen?”

“Don’t say that, Kassapa.”

“Then is there no pain?”

“It’s not the case, Kassapa, that there is no pain. There is pain.”

“Then, in that case, does Master Gotama not know or see pain?”

“Kassapa, it’s not the case that I don’t know or see pain. I know pain. I see pain.”

“Now, Master Gotama, when asked, ‘Is pain self-made?’ you say, ‘Don’t say that, Kassapa.‘ When asked, ‘Then is it other-made?‘ you say, ‘Don’t say that, Kassapa.‘ When asked, ‘Then is it both self-made and other-made?’ you say, ‘Don’t say that, Kassapa.‘ When asked, ‘Then is it the case that pain, being neither self-made nor other-made, arises spontaneously?’ you say, ‘Don’t say that, Kassapa.‘ When asked, ‘Then is there no pain?’ you say, ‘It’s not the case, Kassapa, that there is no pain. There is pain.‘ When asked, ‘Well, in that case, does Master Gotama not know or see pain?’ you say, ‘Kassapa, it’s not the case that I don’t know or see pain. I know pain. I see pain.’ Then tell me about pain, lord Blessed One. Teach me about pain, lord Blessed One!”

“Kassapa, the statement, ‘With the one who acts being the same as the one who experiences, existing from the beginning, pain is self-made’: This circles around eternalism. And the statement, ‘With the one who acts being one thing, and the one who experiences being another, existing as the one struck by the feeling’: This circles around annihilationism. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”

SN 12:17
Image
"When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

SN 12:15
Image
“Suppose, Māgandiya, there was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine for him, and by means of that medicine the man would be cured of his leprosy and would become well and happy, independent, master of himself, able to go where he likes. Then two strong men would seize him by both arms and drag him towards a burning charcoal pit. What do you think, Māgandiya? Would that man twist his body this way and that?”

“Yes, Master Gotama. Why is that? Because that fire is indeed painful to touch, hot, and scorching.”

“What do you think, Māgandiya? Is it only now that that fire is painful to touch, hot, and scorching, or previously too was that fire painful to touch, hot, and scorching?”

“Master Gotama, that fire is now painful to touch, hot, and scorching, and previously too that fire was painful to touch, hot, and scorching. For when that man was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired; thus, though the fire was actually painful to touch, he acquired a mistaken perception of it as pleasant.”

“So too, Māgandiya, in the past sensual pleasures were painful to touch, hot, and scorching; in the future sensual pleasures will be painful to touch, hot, and scorching; and now at present sensual pleasures are painful to touch, hot, and scorching. But these beings who are not free from lust for sensual pleasures, who are devoured by craving for sensual pleasures, who burn with fever for sensual pleasures, have faculties that are impaired; thus, though sensual pleasures are actually painful to touch, they acquire a mistaken perception of them as pleasant.

MN 75
Image
"...for one reborn as a human being false speech at minimum conduces to false accusations."

"...for one reborn as a human being divisive speech at minimum conduces to being divided from one’s friends."

"...for one reborn as a human being harsh speech at minimum conduces to disagreeable sounds."

"...for one reborn as a human being idle chatter at minimum conduces to others distrusting one’s words."

AN 8:40
Image

Image
“It is by clinging, Ānanda, that the notion ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. And by clinging to what does ‘I am’ occur, not without clinging? It is by clinging to form that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging. It is by clinging to feeling … to perception … to volitional formations … to consciousness that ‘I am’ occurs, not without clinging.

SN 22:83
"For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature"

MN 140
Image
And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

MN 117
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

MN 117
Image
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

SN 12:15
Image
Consciousness which is non-manifestative
Endless lustrous on all sides
Here it is that water and earth
Fire and air no footing find
Here again is long and short
Subtle and gross, comely and ugly
Here is name as well as form
Are held in check with no trace left
Wherein consciousness comes to cease
All these are held in check therein

MN 49
Image
“Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn’t even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would 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 banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him—seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them—they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?

SN 22:95
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by salayatananirodha »

Since your post clearly lays nāgārjuna's writing alongside the dhamma, I don't think it necessarily belongs in "Connections...". Just because he has been labeled a mahāyāna thinker doesn't mean that he is.
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by Sam Vara »

dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am ...
It would be better if you stated in your own words what your point is, rather than presenting a long series of quotes.
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

salayatananirodha wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:17 am Since your post clearly lays nāgārjuna's writing alongside the dhamma, I don't think it necessarily belongs in "Connections...". Just because he has been labeled a mahāyāna thinker doesn't mean that he is.
not theravāda though

but idc what subforum it is in
Last edited by dylanj on Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:19 am
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am ...
It would be better if you stated in your own words what your point is, rather than presenting a long series of quotes.
My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works, a point that is demonstrated by the quotes without me having to say it, & a point that would have no meaning merely being said without the quotes to support it. So I have to disagree that it would be better. Actually I think it would be worse. But thanks for offering your opinion.
Last edited by dylanj on Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by budo »

These quotes are nicely cherry picked, but what about all the other statements that contradict with early buddhism? Where are those? Do they not exist or have they been left out?

Nice post overall though
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

budo wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:19 am These quotes are nicely cherry picked, but what about all the other statements that contradict with early buddhism? Where are those? Do they not exist or have they been left out?

Nice post overall though
It is my view that they do not exist. I would've gone on with the quotes & citations if I hadn't exhausted myself.

But you seem convinced they do exist, can you show them to me?
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by Sam Vara »

dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 am
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:19 am
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am ...
It would be better if you stated in your own words what your point is, rather than presenting a long series of quotes.
My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works
Thanks. Better late than never!
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:36 am
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 am
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:19 am

It would be better if you stated in your own words what your point is, rather than presenting a long series of quotes.
My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works
Thanks. Better late than never!
You are welcome.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by DooDoot »

dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 amMy point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works...
Despite what appears to be cherry-picking, what is the point of highlighting plagiarism? If it is not plagiarism but merely a disciple repeating the teachings then what makes it special, let alone another path? When I quote the suttas, am I another path? :shrug: Anyway, these quote below appear questionable to me.

:popcorn:
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 amImage
The above quote is strange, similar to the "backwards" logic where Nāgārjuna says because dependent origination is sunnata then sunnata is depedent origination. Its like saying because a dog is an animal all animals are dogs. :? While suffering is certainly dependently originated, this teaching exists to tell us suffering is not self-caused. Its not to tell us it cannot be not dependently originated. The purpose of the Dhamma is to negate the self rather than to deify dependent origination. Regardless, Nāgārjuna above appears to be saying the aggregates themselves are suffering and the causes of suffering; which appears contrary to the suttas; which appear to highlight the grasping of the aggregates as suffering.
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 amImage
The above seems contrary to the Buddha-Dhamma. I did not notice any Buddha-Dhamma equivalent. In other words, what exactly is an "existent"? Where do the Pali suttas teach about "existents"? Where does the Pali suttas say "bhava" does not arise & does not cease?
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 amImage
Really? Where do the suttas say the aggregates arise from the conception of "I"? :shrug: Suttas such as SN 22.82 appear to say form arises from the four great elements; feeling, perception & thinking arises from contact; and consciousness arises from mind-body (nama-rupa). Suttas such as SN 22.85 says a Buddha does not have conception of "I am" but has aggregates (even though a Buddha is not defined as aggregates).
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 amImage
I think this quote is sloppy to say the "I am" depends on the aggregates. While this is partially true (given the aggregates are taken to be "I am"), the suttas appear to highlight the "I am" depends on ignorance & craving (eg SN 22.81). It seems if the aggregates were the direct cause of the arising of the "I am" then the aggregates would have to be destroyed for the "I am" to be destroyed.
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 amImage
I don't recall DN 11 saying the four elements "cease". Also, many suttas say there cannot be consciousness without nama-rupa (mind-body) therefore it appears the meaning of nama-rupa in DN 11 may be to be taken in the literal Brahmanistic sense, namely, "naming-forms". So yes, in the samadi of clear consciousness, naming-forms ceases (but the mind-body does not cease).
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

This is a wonderful thread. Yes, obviously Venerable Nāgārjuna had a thorough Buddhist education for his time (which is far more thorough than anything we could hope for in this day and age!), but ultimately, IMO, Theravādin's who like Ven Nāgārjuna must compare even the words from him that seem less in-line with elder dispensations.

This paper has been linked here before, but in case you have not yet read it, Venerable Shì Huìfēng goes to great length to argue that Ven Nāgārjuna's teachings on emptiness are pulled from śrāvaka literature, in short, it is agreeing with your thread:

https://www.academia.edu/8805059/_Depen ... al_Sources

But what do you think of this?
All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.
All dharmas’ true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.
All dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken language’s ending.
There is no arising and no cessation, there is calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa.
All is real, all is unreal, all is both real and unreal,
all is neither real nor unreal:
this is called all Buddhas’ dharma.
(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā, T1564.23c16 : 諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 [etc.], section 18)

A positive tetralemma? What does that even mean? :spy:

Here are two commentaries by Madhyamaka Venerables who try to make this passage jive with the Buddha:
To quote: “Whatever is most familiar to one is most effective for him naturally. If one is bewildered how can one receive the truth? As it is not possible to make a foreigner understand by a language not his own, so the unenlightened person (loka) cannot be made to comprehend except by means of the everyday.”

As the illustrious one said: “The unenlightened person is at variance with me; I am not at variance with the unenlightened person. What is accepted by the unenlightened is accepted by me; what is not accepted by the unenlightened is not accepted by me.” Thus the scripture. The illustrious one always treated the elements of personal existence, the senses and their objects, and the types of consciousness as “real” (tathyam). These are thought to be real when perceived by those who are to be guided - those suffering from the optical defect of primal ignorance — in whom has been aroused the desire to learn about the various natures of the things generally accepted as real. And this with an eye on the higher truth and with a view to arousing the faith of the ordinary man in himself.

“This holy man is aware of every last happening in the world, he is omniscient and all-seeing; he possesses the knowledge of the inanimate world from the infinity of space to the coursing of the winds and he knows the uttermost limits of the world of beings; he knows incontrovertibly the many kinds of origin, existence and end, what is cause, what is effect, what is pleasurable, what is painful.”

So, after those who are to be guided have realized the omniscience of the illustrious one, at a later time it is explained that everything is not real (na tathyam) as naively taken. At this point what is real is what does not change. But all compounded things change in fact because they perish by the moment. Therefore, because of this fact of change, they are not real either. The word "or"; means "and"; it is to be taken as joining the two views. That is: "Everything in this world can be taken as real and as not real."

For some it is explained that everything in the world is both real and not real at the same time. For the unenlightened everything in the world is real; for those who have started on the way everything is false because not perceived in its naive reality (evam anupalambha).

There are those however who, from long practice, see things the way they really are, who have eradicated the obstructions (avarana) virtually completely like the roots of a tree; for them it is explained that everything in the world is neither real nor not real. In order to remove what remains of the obstructions, both alternatives are rejected even as one rejects predicates like black and white for the son of a barren woman.

This is the teaching of the illustrious Buddhas. It leads men from byways and establishes them on the right way. In the interests of gradual instruction and of adapting to those who are to be led, the teaching is flexible.

All the teachings of the illustrious Buddhas, who are possessed of universal compassion, ultimate insight and practical wisdom, are intended to be a means of penetrating (avatara) to the eternal way of things (tattvamrta). The perfectly realized ones have not uttered one word which was not in fact a means of penetrating to the eternal way of things. They administer medicine suited to the illness. They have the urge to succour those who need guidance and they teach the truth accordingly. To quote from the Four Hundred Verses: “Things are real, things are not real, things are both real and not real: all this is said variously. Indeed all cures as such are cures for a specific desire.”

But, you ask, what is the nature of “the way things really are” which the teachings of the revered ones are intended to penetrate to? This is explained in the verse “When the object of thought is no more, there is nothing for language to refer to.” When this obtains what further questions can there be? Though this is so, none the less the way things are really must be spoken of. This is done by speaking in a second sense (samaropatah). One accepts the everyday (laukika) terms “real”, “not real” and so on which are drawn from the world of transactional discourse (vyavaharasatya).

Nagarjuna expresses it this way.
(Venerable Candrakīrti, c.600-650, Mūlamadhyamakavṛttiprasannapadā, Darbhaga 1960, Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, 10: tatra - yadyadyasya priyaṃ pūrvaṃ tattattasya samācaret na hi pratihataḥ pātraṃ saddharmasya kathaṃcana iti tathā ca bhagavatoktam - loko mayā sārdhaṃ vivadati nāhaṃ lokena sārdhaṃ vivadāmi yalloke’sti saṃmatam, tanmamāpyasti saṃmatam yalloke nāsti saṃmatam, mamāpi tannāsti saṃmatam [etc.], translation Mervyn Sprung)

Some people teach that there is a soul, in which case it must be of two kinds. Either the five skandhas are themselves the soul, or the soul exists apart from the five skandhas.

If the five skandhas are the soul, then the soul will have the characteristics of arising and ceasing. Thus it says in the verse ‘if the soul is the five skandhas it will have the characteristics of arising and ceasing’, and why? Becuase once arisen, it will perish. Because they have the characteristics of arising and ceasing, the five skandhas have no permanence, and just as the five skandhas have no permanence, the two dharmas of arising and ceasing likewise have no permanence. Why is this? Because arising and ceasing also perish after they have arisen and hence are impermanent. If the soul were the five skandhas, then, since the five skandhas are impermanent, the soul would also be impermanent and would have the characteristics of arising and ceasing, but this is not correct.

If the soul existed apart from the five skandhas, the soul would not have the characteristics of the five skandhas. As it says in the verse: ‘if the soul is different from the five skandhas, then it will not have the characteristics of the five skandhas’. Yet no other dharma exists apart from the five skandhas. If there were any such dharma apart from the five skandhas, by virtue of what characteristics, or what dharmas, would it exist? If you say that the soul is like empty space, separate from the five skandhas yet existent, this is also wrong, and why? We have already refuted empty space in the chapter on refuting the six elements. No dhama called ‘empty space’ exists.

If you assert that a soul exists because belief in it exists, this is not correct, and why? Belief is of four kinds; the first is belief in a manifest thing, the second is belief in something known through this manifest thing as when seeing smoke, we know that there is a fire. The third is belief by analogy as when, in a country with no copper, one uses the example of it being like gold. The fourth is belief in what is taught by saints and sages, as when they say that there are hells, heavens and uttarakuru. Without seeing anything, we believe the words of the holy men and thus know about them.

Such a ‘soul’ cannot be found amongst these beliefs. It is not found in belief in manifest things, nor in inferential belief, and why? Inferential knowledge means that having previously seen something, you thenceforth know (about) this kind of thing, as for example a man who has previously seen that where there is fire there is smoke, subsequently, seeing only smoke, knows that there is fire. The concept of ‘soul’ is not like this, for who could first have seen the soul in the combination of the five skandhas, such that afterwards, seeing the five skandhas, he knows that there is a soul?

Suppose you say that there are three kinds of inferential knowledge, the first being ‘like the original’, the second being ‘like the remainder’, the third ‘seeing together’. ‘Like the original’ means previously having seen that fire has smoke, seeing smoke now, you know that it is like the original which had fire. ‘Like the remainder’ means, for example, that when one grain of rice is cooked, you know that the remaining ones are all cooked. ‘Seeing together’ means, for example, that when you see with your eyes a person going from hereto another place, you also see his going. The sun is like this. It emerges from the east and goes to the west. Although you do not see it going, because a man has the characteristic of going, you know that the sun also has going. In the same way suffering, pleasure, hate, desire, and insight, etc. must also have whatever goes with them. For example, seeing subjects you know that they must rely on some king. But these are all incorrect, and why?

In belief through the characteristic of together-ness, having first seen a person combined with a dharma of ‘going’ who reaches some other place, when you subsequently see the sun reach another place you know that there is the dharma of ‘going’. But there is no prior seeing of the five skandhas combined with a soul, such that subsequently seeing the five skandhas you know that there is a soul. Therefore, no existence of a soul can be established by inferential knowledge of ‘together-ness’.

There is no soul to be found within the teachings of the saints either, and why? In the teaching of the saints, what they first see with their eyes, they subsequently expound. And since the saints teach other things which can be believed, we should know that when they speak of the hells, etc., these can be believed in, but it is not so with the soul, for there is no-one who, having previously seen a soul, subsequently speaks of it.

Therefore, you may seek for a soul within all beliefs such as these four types of belief, but you will not be able to find it. Since you cannot find a soul even though you seek for it, no distinct soul exists separate from the five skandhas.

Further, because of the refutation of seeing, seer and seen in the chapter refuting the six sense faculties, the soul is to be refuted in the same way. For if even an eye seeing coarse dharmas cannot be found, how much less can we find a soul by empty delusions, imagination and so forth? For these reasons, we know that there is no self.

‘Mine’ exists because ‘I’ exists. If there is no I, then there is no mine. Through putting into practice the holy eight-fold path and extinguishing the causes of I and mine, one attains the firm insight of no I and no mine.

Question: Even though non-self is the truth, what is wrong with teaching, merely as a convention, that there is a self?

Reply: Non-self exists by virtue of the negation of the dharma of self. No fixed self can be found, so how could there be non-self? If there were a fixed non-self, then annihilation of if would give rise to attachment and craving. As it says in the Prajñāpāramitā, if a bodhisattva has a self, he cannot act, and if he has no self, he cannot act.

Question: If it teaches neither self nor non-self, neither emptiness nor non-emptiness, what does the Buddha-dharma teach?

Reply: The Buddha teaches the true character of all dharmas, and within that true character there is no path for verbal expressions, for it extinguishes all mental activity. Mind arises because of the characteristic of grasping, exists because of the rewards and retribution of karma in a previous world, and cannot therefore see the true character of dharmas. The Buddha teaches the cessation of mental activities.

Question: Even though an unenlightened person’s mind cannot see the reality, surely a saint’s mind can see the reality? Why does he teach the cessation of all mental activities?

Reply: The true character of dharmas is nirvana, and cessation means nirvana. It is in order to point towards nirvana, that cessation is also termed cessation. If one’s mind were real, what use would be such ways to liberation as emptiness, etc? Why, amongst all the samadhis would the samadhi of cessation be regarded as the highest, and why ultimately reach nirvana without residue?

Therefore we should know that all mental activities are empty deceptions, and as empty deceptions, should cease. The true character of all dharmas surpasses all dharmas of mental phenomena, has no arising and no ceasing, and has the characteristic of calming and extinction solely.

Question: In the sutras it says that all dharmas, having from the beginning the characteristic of calm extinction are themselves nirvana. Why do you say that they are like nirvana?

Reply: Those who are attached to dharmas classify dharmas into two kinds, some being worldly, some being of nirvana. They say that the nirvana dharmas are calm and extinct, but do not say that the worldly dharmas are calm and extinct. In this treatise it is taught that all dharmas are empty in nature and have the characteristic of calm extinction. Since those who are attached to dharmas do not understand this, nirvana is used as an example. Just as with your assertion that the characteristic of nirvana is emptiness, with no characteristics, calm extinction, and no vain thoughts, so it is with all worldly dharmas.

Question: If the Buddhas do not teach self, non-self, and the cessation of all mental activities and the cutting-off of ways of verbal expression, how do they make people understand the real character of dharmas?

Reply: All the Buddhas have unlimited powers of skilful means, and dharmas have no fixed characteristics. In order to save all living beings, they may teach that everything is real, or they may teach that everything is unreal, or that everything is both real and unreal or that everything is neither unreal nor not unreal. If you search for a real nature of dharmas, you will find that they all enter into the ultimate meaning and become equal, with identical characteristics, which is to say no characteristics, just like streams of different colour and different tastes entering into a great ocean of one colour and one taste, which is to say no taste. At the time when one has not yet penetrated into the true character of dharmas, each one can be contemplated separately as unreal, existing merely by the combinations of conditions. There are three levels of living beings; superior, average and inferior. The superior person sees that the characteristic of dharmas is that they are neither real nor unreal. The average person sees the characteristics of dharmas as either all real, or all unreal. The inferior man, since his powers of perception are limited, sees the characteristics of dharmas as a little real, and a little unreal, regarding nirvana, because it is an inactive dharma and does not perish as real, and regarding samsara, because it is an active dharma, empty and false, as unreal. Neither unreal nor not unreal is taught in order to negate ‘both real and unreal’.
(Venerable Vimalākṣa, c.200-300, Mādhyamikaśāstram T1564.24a15: 有人說神。應有二種。若五陰即是神。若離 五陰有神。[etc.], translation Brian Christopher Bocking)
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:38 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.
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by budo »

dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:33 am
budo wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:19 am These quotes are nicely cherry picked, but what about all the other statements that contradict with early buddhism? Where are those? Do they not exist or have they been left out?

Nice post overall though
It is my view that they do not exist. I would've gone on with the quotes & citations if I hadn't exhausted myself.

But you seem convinced they do exist, can you show them to me?
The only thing I am convinced of is that the devil is in the details. If I was convinced they do exist, I wouldn't ask you.
auto
Posts: 4579
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by auto »

dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 am
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:19 am
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am ...
It would be better if you stated in your own words what your point is, rather than presenting a long series of quotes.
My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works, a point that is demonstrated by the quotes without me having to say it, & a point that would have no meaning merely being said without the quotes to support it. So I have to disagree that it would be better. Actually I think it would be worse. But thanks for offering your opinion.
Why just Nagarjuna? wouldn't anyone who does commentary and analysis fall under your fetish rule.
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

auto wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:41 pm
dylanj wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:26 am
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:19 am

It would be better if you stated in your own words what your point is, rather than presenting a long series of quotes.
My point is that Nāgārjuna takes directly from the early buddhist texts in his works, a point that is demonstrated by the quotes without me having to say it, & a point that would have no meaning merely being said without the quotes to support it. So I have to disagree that it would be better. Actually I think it would be worse. But thanks for offering your opinion.
Why just Nagarjuna? wouldn't anyone who does commentary and analysis fall under your fetish rule.
What?
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Nāgārjuna

Post by dylanj »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:36 pm
But what do you think of this?
All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.
All dharmas’ true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.
All dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken language’s ending.
There is no arising and no cessation, there is calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa.
All is real, all is unreal, all is both real and unreal,
all is neither real nor unreal:
this is called all Buddhas’ dharma.
(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā, T1564.23c16 : 諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 [etc.], section 18)

A positive tetralemma? What does that even mean? :spy:
My understanding from the limited historical analysis of Nāgārjuna's works I've done is that, due to later 'madhyamikas' like Chandrakirti et al, a lot of the verses have been distorted/mistranslated.

This is the translation I have of the relevant verses from Kalupahana:
"The Buddhas have make known the conception of self and taught the doctrine of no-self. At the same be, they have not spoken of something as the self or as the non-self."
"When the sphere of though has ceased, that which is to be designated also has ceased. Like freedom, the nature of things is non-arisen and non-ceased."
"Everything is such, not such, both such and not such, and neither such nor not such: this is the Buddha's admonition."
I think it's clear that the first two of these verses aren't in conflict with the Dhamma when rendered like this. Regarding the positive tetralemme, what Kalupahana argues is that "admonition" has been confused for "advice" & in fact Nāgārjuna is merely stating that the Buddha revealed the contradictions people run into using the four-cornered logic of the tetralemma.

It makes a lot more sense to me like this. I've seen similar things with the introductory stanza where when translated by some mahāyānists it seems they have confused & conflated the matter, equating the description of asaṅkhata with the mention of dependent origination, whereas when translated by those who have a grounding in the early texts it comes out very clear. Here is an example of two translations of that verse:
That which is dependently arisen
Does not cease & does not arise
Does not come & does not go
Is not annihilated & is not permanent
Is not different & not the same
To the true teacher who reveals this peace
The complete pacification of constructs
To the perfect Buddha I bow down
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 am not skilled in language enough to be able to make much of a comment myself but I strongly suspect that most of the instances where his words seem to say the opposite of what the Buddha taught are a matter of confusion on the part of those who took his writings to be an assertion of some sort of positive ultimate truth instead of a negation of wrong views.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Post Reply