Nagarjuna and Theravada

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Ceisiwr »

I have just come accross the works of Nagarjuna and find him most wise and his work very insightful.

My question is more directed to those familliar with his work, are his teachings on emptiness and paticcasamuppāda in line with Theravada interpretations (i know they differ on the three lives model).

Does he stray to far from the Buddhas teachings in elaboration or does he keep in line with them?

All thoughts are welcome
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/nagarjuna_smith.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Ceisiwr »

Thanks Tiltbillings, interesting document
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Ceisiwr »

I am inclined to agree that Nagarjuna had a serious philosophical
agenda. It seems pretty clear to me that he wrote the M¯ula-madhyamakak
¯arik¯a with the intention of making making a knock-down argument against
anything that might stand as a candidate to be a self (¯atman). So seriously
did he take the Indian Buddhist taboo against selfhood that he was not content
with the standard Buddhist view that a complex being, such as a human
being, has only a derivative self—a self derived from its constituent parts.
He apparently felt an obsessive need to take the doctrine of non-self to its
ultimate conclusion by showing that even the consituent parts of a complex
being have no self.
Strange, this strikes acord of maybe what i was trying to do in some way with my other thread on rebirth, perhaps i was taking Anatta to an extreme
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Aloka »

Hi Craig,

I've studied and practiced Tibetan Buddhism almost exclusively in the past and am only just recently looking into Theravada more, so I can't answer your question.
However, If you are interested in Nagarjuna's Mulamadhhyamakakarika then perhaps you might like to have a look at ''The Sun of Wisdom'' which is a commentary by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso on the main verses in the root text.

http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=11031" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Kind wishes,

Aloka
Last edited by Aloka on Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Prasadachitta »

My not so scholarly critique of this essay is as follows. Most of the essay consists of commentary by the author on the impressions of other scholars. The only real thing it has to say directly about the work of Nagarjuna is...
The word “sva-bh¯ava” means a nature (bh¯ava) that
belongs to the thing itself (svasya); it refers, in other words, to a thing’s identity.
ButN¯ag¯arjuna takes advantage of the fact that the word “svabh¯ava” could
also be interpreted to mean the fact that a thing comes into being (bhavati)
from itself (svatah. ) or by itself (svena); on this interpretation, the term would
refer to a thing’s independence. Assuming this latter analysis of the word,
rather than the one that most Buddhists actually held, N¯ag¯arjuna then points
out that whatever comes into being from conditions is not coming into being
from itself; and if a thing does not come into being from itself, then it has no
svabh¯ava.
I dont know any Sanskrit and I am not in a position to say what most Buddhists meant when using the word "Svabavha" during the time of Nagarjuna. That being said here are the two meaning which the author states were possible.

1) A nature that belongs to the thing itself
2) That a thing comes into being from itself

I would say from my knowledge of Nagarjuna that he has addressed both of these meanings in such a way as to show that neither one can really be said to be true of phenomena. I am guessing the first definition involves an intrinsic quality that a thing produces. The second definition seems the same if you point directly at the quality alone.

I could go into quoting Nagarjuna but I don't think it is really necessary since this essay isn't actually making any type of claim at all. For example the author doesn't actually say if he knows how Buddhists of that period actually use the term "svabavha".

The author states
While I agree that we might have an interesting paradox if N¯ag¯arjuna was
correct in his critique of essence, I do not think N¯ag¯arjuna succeeded in his
critique.
But he has done nothing to address why he thinks this.
So seriously did he take the Indian Buddhist taboo against selfhood that he was not content
with the standard Buddhist view that a complex being, such as a human
being, has only a derivative self—a self derived from its constituent parts.
He apparently felt an obsessive need to take the doctrine of non-self to its
ultimate conclusion by showing that even the consituent parts of a complex
being have no self.
This statement about Nagarjuna's "obsessive need" makes me feel that this author is projecting. Either he disagrees for a reason or not. Nagarjuna does a very good job at showing the emptiness of "parts" whether they are spacial parts, temporal parts, or relational parts. Nagarjuna by pointing at the limitation of concepts to describe actuality indirectly proves that it is possible to go beyond into a greater more expansive and more lucid way of seeing and knowing.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

Nagarjuna by pointing at the limitation of concepts to describe actuality indirectly proves that it is possible to go beyond into a greater more expansive and more lucid way of seeing and knowing.
More expansive and lucid than what is found in the suttas?
>> 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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Prasadachitta »

tiltbillings wrote:
Nagarjuna by pointing at the limitation of concepts to describe actuality indirectly proves that it is possible to go beyond into a greater more expansive and more lucid way of seeing and knowing.
More expansive and lucid than what is found in the suttas?
Words do not "see and Know". I cant tell what you are asking.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

An interesting and probably worthwhile book on Theravada (or probably more correctly, the Pali suttas) and Nagarjuna is David Kalpahana's NAGARJUNA: The Philosophy of the Middle Way. This book is a translation of Nagarjuna's central text, the Mula. Tibetan type hate the book, which probably speaks well of it. The translation, while not perfect is good and the commentary is interesting, often referencing the Pali suttas.

But for me, the Theravada/Pali suttas do not need Nagarjuna.
>> 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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Prasadachitta »

tiltbillings wrote: But for me, the Theravada/Pali suttas do not need Nagarjuna.
I respect this Tilt. I suppose what you mean is you do not need anything but the Pali Suttas.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

I suppose what you mean is you do not need anything but the Pali Suttas.
No. The Mahayanist Nagarjuna-wallahs insist, in their typical supersessionist way, that it is only Nagarjuna's analysis that will give us proper, correct view that will lead us to true awakening. Everything, according to them, is colored by some sort of self notion, no matter how subtle, unless one goes Nagarjuna on its hiney. This is not quite true working from the Pali suttas and even the Abhidhamma pitaka.
>> 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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Prasadachitta »

tiltbillings wrote:
I suppose what you mean is you do not need anything but the Pali Suttas.
No. The Mahayanist Nagarjuna-wallahs insist, in their typical supersessionist way, that it is only Nagarjuna's analysis that will give us proper, correct view that will lead us to true awakening. Everything, according to them, is colored by some sort of self notion notion no matter how subtle, unless one goes a Nagarjuna on its hinie. This is not quite true working from the Pali suttas and even the Abhidhamma pitaka.
Ok Ok Ok. :hug:

Im not a Hinaweeni or a sectarian. I have been witness to your online struggle with the kind of thing you talk about above and I do not want to be associated with it.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by tiltbillings »

Im not a Hinaweeni or a sectarian. I have been witness to your online struggle with the kind of thing you talk about above and I do not want to be associated with it.
I would not have accused you such uncouth behaior. There is certainly nothing wrong with reading Nagarjuna, and actually he can be helpful, but as I have read his stuff, I have also seen, not though his lens, that the Pali suttas already have it and in a more approachable manner.
>> 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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Prasadachitta »

tiltbillings wrote:
Im not a Hinaweeni or a sectarian. I have been witness to your online struggle with the kind of thing you talk about above and I do not want to be associated with it.
I would not have accused you such uncouth behaior. There is certainly nothing wrong with reading Nagarjuna, and actually he can be helpful, but as I have read his stuff, I have also seen, not though his lens, that the Pali suttas already have it and in a more approachable manner.

Approachability is subjective but even given that I will agree that Nagarjuna's analysis of emptiness broadly speaking rather lack approachability. The OP asked about whether they are in line with the Pali Suttas and I would say "Yes". Because of this I would also say that the Pali Suttas do not require the work of Nagarjuna to point to the emptiness of dhammas. Nagarjuna is not expressing anything that isn't put in a simpler way within the Nikayas. I personally find Nagarjuna helpful because of my natural tendency to impute existence into the teachings. I dont need to read Nagarjuna allot. It just helps me every now and then when I settle into thinking I understand. I also think Nagarjuna is very good in the modern climate with all of the materialist reductionism. I dont think this kind of thinking was nearly as prevalent in the Buddhas time. I once tended towards a materialist reductionism and Nagarjuna's teaching played a very important role in blowing apart this kind of seeing things. I could speculate about how things would have gone if I had not read Nagarjuna but what is the point in that? I expect practice and study of the Pali Suttas would have subdued my doubts eventually but I can not deny the effecacy of Nagarjuna.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Nagarjuna and Theravada

Post by Individual »

I think that agreeing or disagreeing with Nagarjuna fails to miss the point of what Buddha was teaching. Because while we can be uncertain of Nagarjuna's intentions, the Buddha's intentions are without doubt. It is relatively easy to use very good logic to take anatta to a complete extreme, to argue that everything is devoid of intrinsic existence (something I agree with, by the way), but this is not necessarily the same thing as the realization of anatta or sunatta. And being attached to an extreme of Madhyamakan nihilism is not good or helpful. A lot of Mahayanists teach an intellectual Madhyamaka, or unintentionally propagate it, and this does nothing good for anyone.

However, what Nagarjuna says does appear to be logically derivable from the Pali suttas. That doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. See all of the various remarks the Buddha makes about emptiness, about the world being like an illusion, and see the descriptions of the four immaterial jhanas (comparing them with Mahayana descriptions of realization of emptiness). The important thing, I think, is not whether one agrees with Nagarjuna, but in how one reaches their opinion. In the Brahmajala sutta, the positions, "x," "y instead of x", "both x and y", tend to be associated with meditation, but the fourth position, "neither x nor y," is associated with logic and reasoning, with regard to several particular wrong views. If a person comes to conclude this -- that the self neither exists nor doesn't exist, that the world is neither real nor unreal, etc., if this is concluded on an intellectual basis, nothing has been achieved. It is merely foolishness that stands in the way of the attainment of the lowest jhanas (easily refuted by a slap in the face), a ditthi that is a burden to attaining bodhi. On the other hand, with the cultivation of the higher immaterial jhanas, it is reasonable to believe that one might say the types of things that the Buddha and Nagarjuna did. And making a claim that anything is neither this nor that, on the basis of attaining the four immaterial jhanas would not be a view. Instead, it would be Noble Right View, being "discernment" (panna).

The main philosophical distinction being made here is over whether there is a "self" of any kind (self in terms of personal identity or any general sense of identity) and what constitutes the self. What the Buddha taught was to not speculate over the existence of self, the nonexistence of self, etc.. So, even if we realize that, intellectually, Nagarjuna is eloquent and intelligent, we do not delude ourselves into believing that we can ignore the apparent reality.

Also, even assuming Nagarjuna was merely a philosopher and had a philosophical agenda, if his main contender was Pudgalavavada and the Theravadins asserting that the Five Aggregates were paramatha, who could blame him and uphold the virtues of his philosophical opponents?
I read that and it seems a bit silly. Their accusation that Nagarjuna invoked a fallacy of equivocation doesn't seem to follow. The author distinguishes between svabhava as identity or causal independence and parabhava as difference or dependence. But the two possible definitions aren't opposed. On the contrary, they are mutually implicated. They are descriptions of the same dhamma, either in terms of its existence as a fixed or dynamic entity. "Dynamic" meaning impermanent and "fixed" being founded on the false assumption of permanence.

By mutually implicated, I mean that if something has an identity, it can only have such by being regarded as causally independent, in some sense. If it's not regarded as causally independent, then there's no justification to say that such a thing has an intrinsic "identity". And if something is causally independent, it can be said to have an identity. And with the other term, parabhava, it is only with the assumption of differentiation that one thing can be said to "give rise" to "another". And without the assumption of differentiation, nothing can be said to depend on anything else. So, identity and causal independence, difference and dependence, are both mutually implicated.

Regarding the distinction being made on the arbitrary basis of fixed\dynamic entities. The term doesn't really have these two separate interpretations, but the author imposes a verbose western interpretation, under the influence of dualism, which obscures the meaning and attacks Nagarjuna wildly on the basis of this misunderstanding. As an analogy, this would be like saying jhana can mean both "mental states achieved during meditation" and "meditative concentration", that bhava can mean both "being" and "becoming", that kamma can mean both the "law of moral causality" and "action".

Such distinctions are made through regarding the distinctions between fixed relationships and dynamic relationships as meaningful. So, an "Identity," is a fixed relationship which is the result of the dynamic relationship of causal independence. "Difference" is a fixed relationship, whereas "causal dependence" is dynamic. "Mental states achieved" is fixed, "meditative concentration" (something you're doing) is dynamic. "Being" is fixed, whereas "becoming" is dynamic. "Law of moral causality" is fixed (more properly called kamma-vipaka, not simply kamma) and "action" is dynamic. By making a similar such distinction, by implying there's a meaningful difference between fixed and dynamic entities, the author seems to be rejecting anicca and thus doesn't get Nagarjuna at all.
tiltbillings wrote: But for me, the Theravada/Pali suttas do not need Nagarjuna.
This is true, but they also do not need Buddhaghosa, Ajahn Chah, Buddhadhasa, or Dhammawheel, but it is still wonderful to have both good and bad commentators.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Post Reply