DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:42 pm
The Pali for the above words is atthita and natthita. What exactly are these two words referring to? Thanks. I doubt a discussion of the Kaccayanagotta Sutta can occur without explaining these two words.
Absolutely. As you know much better than me, atthita is the word defining “existence”, but in the abstract, in an absolute way. Natthita is then its contrary, non-existence in an absolute way. One element the Buddha kindly teaches us within the Kaccayanagotta Sutta is how we can refute both atthita (leading to eternalism) and natthita (leading to nihilism).
Friendofsthaviravada wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:28 pm 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”.
How does seeing the origination of the world exclusively negate 'non-existence'? How does seeing the cessation of the world exclusively negate 'existence'? Thanks
Here, I think we should understand the word “world” not in his ordinary sense (a place in which we move and interact with other beings) but in its meaning related to the six senses. Like in “—ardent, alert, & having sati —subduing greed & distress with reference to the world” (SN 48:10). Meaning subduing greed and distress with reference to the six senses. In this context, atthita- when apprehended with right discernment and with reference to the six senses, does not occur. Nor does natthita.
Friendofsthaviravada wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:28 pmRather, he kindly and very methodically “adjust” our Right View in a mode that can discern Saṃsāra, Nirvāṇa (or else) beyond being words, concepts or theories.
But the Buddha never taught words, concepts or theories were the cause of suffering. The Buddha said ignorance if specific laws & realities and craving were the causes of suffering.
And I cannot be more in agreement with you! Indeed, the Buddha teaches us all the time, with infinite patience, that the origin of suffering is ignorance (avijjā, avidyā). And we know that ignorance is the “root” of the twelve-fold chain (dvādasanidānāni, pratītyasamutpāda).
The question is: ignorance of what ? To stay in line with what was discussed above, let’s propose “ignorance of the true nature of the world”. Meaning, to me at least, ignorance of the lack of inherent, “true” nature of the world (and the representation of said world conveyed by our six senses). By removing the extremes of both atthita and natthita as truly existent, we can cut suffering at its root, by knowing the inherent empty nature of all phenomena, including suffering. The empty nature of suffering being understood as suffering being fabricated by “non-suffering” elements.
Friendofsthaviravada wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:28 pmNirvāṇa as a word, concept or theory has no independent existence.
Nirvana is peace. Nirvana is not a word.
And, again, I cannot more agree with you. Nirvāṇa is not a word, and that’s exactly what Nāgārjuna tells us. You can call Nirvāṇa “peace”, and that is perfectly fine, truly. Others would call it “dharmadhātu”, or “luminous primordial wisdom”, or whatever you want. It is not important. Nirvāṇa is beyond, Nirvāṇa is on the other shore. And if Nirvāṇa is, then Saṃsāra is too. They are not separated.
Friendofsthaviravada wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:28 pmBy refuting the extremes of “existence”,“non-existence”, both or
none of them
SN 12.15 obviously refutes both of them them rather than none of them. It appears both you and Nagarjuna are equating "arising" with "existence" and "cessation" with "non-existence.
Mmmmh, not exactly. And please, I am not in Nāgārjuna’s league but thank you for the comparison. I truly understand atthita in its “absolute” sense. Not like bhava as “becoming”. So no, neither Nāgārjuna, nor me -at a much much lower level-, would ever equate “arising” with “existence” or “cessation” with “non-existence”. Not at all. I can elaborate on that if requested.
Friendofsthaviravada wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:28 pm Nāgārjuna therefore uses emptiness and impermanence (inconsistence)
The Buddha used impermanence to explain emptiness (anatta).
I fully agree, sorry if my writing was not clear.
Friendofsthaviravada wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:28 pmto as tools to unlock the fetters of co-dependent origination.
Nagarjuna appears to equate "co-dependent origination" with "emptiness". Since emptiness is freedom and dependent origination is fetters, how can "co-dependent origination" represent "emptiness"?