Element
03 May 12, 21:23
***Moderator Note*** (Abhaya)
These posts have been moved from the thread "Verses from the Center question" due to their advanced subject matter. They are based on Nagarjuna's work, the Mula-Madhyamaka-Karika, and the essay "Emptiness and Freedom" by Leigh Brasington located at this link: http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ011/bj011376333.pdf
~Nagarjuna thread begins here~
whilst this verse contains a number of erroneous notions in respect to the Buddha's teaching, it is certainly detailed & difficult
The dharma taught by buddhas
Hinges on two truths:
Partial truths of the world
And truths which are sublime.
Without knowing how they differ,
You cannot know the deep;
Without relying on conventions,
You cannot disclose the sublime;
Without intuiting the sublime,
You cannot experience freedom.
this verse above is irrelevant to the practise of higher Buddhism because in existence of "things" is irrelevant to freedom from suffering. to be free from suffering, the mind must simply understand "things" are impermanent & are not a "self"
however, apart from that, what Nargajuna seems to be attempting to impart is because things are impermanent & comprised of various parts, there are no things. thus, because Nargajuna believes there are no things, the conventions of worldly language (such as "dog", "cat", "TV", etc) are partial truths
Misperceiving emptiness
Injures the unintelligent
Like mishandling a snake
Or miscasting a spell.
yes, it appears Nargajuna himself misperceived emptiness, resulting in confusion for myriad blind faith followers & injury to Buddha's teachings
however, apart from that, Nargajuna has spoken a truth. if emptiness is misperceived then a person can get stuck in nihilistic views and attachment to non-becoming
for example, during WW2, Japanese priests taught soldiers all things were emptiness therefore it is OK to kill. obviously, such advice is illogical because the motive to kill comes from a selfish mind rather than a mind empty of self
or some attached to emptiness can become paranoid, in that they believe speaking the words "I" is a sin. the word "I" is also empty but refusing to speak the word "I" the Buddha called attachment to non-becoming, comparing it to a dog chasing its tail
like a fire to be avoided because its reality is it can burn, the tail chasers believe the "I" to be real
Buddha said:
like a dog tied to a post keeps circling that same post, through fear & disgust with identity, he keepings running around that same identity
Majjhima Nikaya 102.12
The Buddha despaired
Of teaching the dharma,
Knowing it hard
To intuit its depths.
sure, Buddha said: "This Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & passion, for a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment" (Majjhima Nikaya 26.19)
Your muddled conclusions
Do not affect emptiness;
Your denial of emptiness
Does not affect me.
:confused:this seems to reify or deify emptiness, turning into "God". emptiness is to be realised rather than worshiped
When emptiness is possible,
Everything is possible;
Were emptiness impossible,
Nothing would be possible.
this sounds like Taoism rather than Buddhism. Buddha taught if there was no emptiness, then ending suffering would not be possible
however, apart from that, its seems Nargajuna has used the term "emptiness" synonymous to "dependent origination" & "impermanence"
thus, if there was no impermanence, how could bodies live by removing food from the earth & digesting the food? if there was no dependent origination (cause & effect), how could medicine cure disease?
there are infinite examples of how impermanence and cause & effect make everything possible
except Nirvana. in reality, impermanence and cause & effect do not make Nirvana possible. Nargajuna seems gravely in error with this
true emptiness makes Nirvana possible but Nargajuna, making emptiness synonymous with dependent origination & impermanence, makes Nirvana impossible
In projecting your faults onto me,
You forget the horse you are riding.
:confused: fighting shadows...irrelevant superstition. it seems Nargajuna lived at a time when there were Buddhist universities and the various intellectual scholars competed with eachother
To see things existing by nature,
Is to see them without
Causes or conditions,
Thus subverting causality,
Agents, tools and acts,
Starting, stopping and ripening.
i am not sure what the translation is saying here. "existing by nature" seems to mean "existing" as an "inherent thing" seen in an natural (i.e., ordinary unenlightened) way
so here, Nargajuna is highlighting there are essentially no "things" because all things are ultimately a collection of various parts, for which the parts of parts digress infinitely into smaller & smaller causes & conditions, to the atomic & subatomic level
Contingency is emptiness
Which, contingently configured,
Is the middle way.
Everything is contingent;
Everything is empty.
this is the Mahayana view created by Nargajuna, that conditionality (cause & effect; dependent origination) is emptiness
(however, Buddha did not really teach emptiness like this)
Were everything not empty,
There would be no rising and passing.
Ennobling truths would not exist.
Without contingency
How could I suffer pain?
Here, N has equated non-emptiness with "thingness". It is saying if everything was not comprised of causes & conditions, there would be no rising & passing. It is also saying if there was no cause & effect, things depending on other things, there could be no suffering because suffering occurs when causes & conditions change. For example, the cause of our happiness is being in love with a certain person. When that person changes, we suffer due to the change (impermanence) of that cause our love & happiness depends on.
However, the logic here is flawed & backwards. Buddha taught there is emptiness because of impermanence rather than there is impermanence due to emptiness. Buddha taught when emptiness is realised, suffering stops. But Nargajuna appears to be saying because of emptiness, suffering exists. N is saying: "Without contigency [which he equates with emptiness] how could I suffer pain?"]
This shifting anguish
Has no nature of its own;
If it did, how could it have a cause?
Deny emptiness and you deny
The origins of suffering.
Apart from N's continued misperceiving of emptiness, the essence of this verse is pure reality & Buddhism. Suffering has no nature of its own. Suffering is dependent on causes & conditions. When this causes & conditions cease, suffering ceases. This is the teaching of the Buddhas.
If anguish existed by nature,
How would it ever cease?
Absolute misery could never stop.
How could you cultivate a path
That exists by nature?
How could it lead to the end of pain?
A path on which you tread
Can have no essence of its own.
N seems totally confused here. He seems to be denying Nirvana, i.e., the unconditioned. Nirvana has its own essence & the path is setting the mind in the Nirvanic state, i.e., free from craving.
If confusion existed by nature,
I would always be confused.
How could I know anything?
Letting go and realizing,
Cultivation and fruition
Could never happen.
The essence of this verse is pure reality & Buddhism. Confusion has no nature of its own. Confusion is dependent on causes & conditions. When this causes & conditions cease, confusion ceases. With the development of wisdom, confusion can end, because is dependent on causes & conditions. This is the teaching of the Buddhas.
Who can attain absolute goals
That by nature are unattainable?
Since no one could reach them,
There would be no community;
With no truths, no dharma either.
With no community or dharma
How could I awaken?
I would not depend on awakening
Nor awakening on me.
A naturally unawakened person
Would never awaken
No matter how hard
He practiced for its sake.
He would never do good or evil;
An unempty person would do nothing.
He'd experience fruits of good and evil
Without having done good or evil deeds.
How can fruits of good and evil not be empty
If they are experienced?
To subvert emptiness and contingency
Is to subvert conventions of the world.
It engenders passivity;
Acts without an author,
Authors who do not act.
Beings would not be born or die;
They would be frozen in time,
Alien to variety.
If things were unempty,
You could attain nothing.
Anguish would never end.
You would never let go of compulsive acts.
To see contingency is to see
Anguish, its origins, cessation and the path.
Out of time.
Buddha taught his teachings were so well proclaimed by him, plain, open, explicit, free of patchwork. (Majjhima Nikaya 22.42)
But Nargajuna is certainly a challenge & excellent for studies in intellectual philosophy.
Good luck to those handling the snake & spell N has caste.
;D
Note: the replies in yellow colour are not replies for Elyse. They are a critique of N and thus not relevant for Elyse's purpose.
These posts have been moved from the thread "Verses from the Center question" due to their advanced subject matter. They are based on Nagarjuna's work, the Mula-Madhyamaka-Karika, and the essay "Emptiness and Freedom" by Leigh Brasington located at this link: http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ011/bj011376333.pdf
~Nagarjuna thread begins here~
whilst this verse contains a number of erroneous notions in respect to the Buddha's teaching, it is certainly detailed & difficult
The dharma taught by buddhas
Hinges on two truths:
Partial truths of the world
And truths which are sublime.
Without knowing how they differ,
You cannot know the deep;
Without relying on conventions,
You cannot disclose the sublime;
Without intuiting the sublime,
You cannot experience freedom.
this verse above is irrelevant to the practise of higher Buddhism because in existence of "things" is irrelevant to freedom from suffering. to be free from suffering, the mind must simply understand "things" are impermanent & are not a "self"
however, apart from that, what Nargajuna seems to be attempting to impart is because things are impermanent & comprised of various parts, there are no things. thus, because Nargajuna believes there are no things, the conventions of worldly language (such as "dog", "cat", "TV", etc) are partial truths
Misperceiving emptiness
Injures the unintelligent
Like mishandling a snake
Or miscasting a spell.
yes, it appears Nargajuna himself misperceived emptiness, resulting in confusion for myriad blind faith followers & injury to Buddha's teachings
however, apart from that, Nargajuna has spoken a truth. if emptiness is misperceived then a person can get stuck in nihilistic views and attachment to non-becoming
for example, during WW2, Japanese priests taught soldiers all things were emptiness therefore it is OK to kill. obviously, such advice is illogical because the motive to kill comes from a selfish mind rather than a mind empty of self
or some attached to emptiness can become paranoid, in that they believe speaking the words "I" is a sin. the word "I" is also empty but refusing to speak the word "I" the Buddha called attachment to non-becoming, comparing it to a dog chasing its tail
like a fire to be avoided because its reality is it can burn, the tail chasers believe the "I" to be real
Buddha said:
like a dog tied to a post keeps circling that same post, through fear & disgust with identity, he keepings running around that same identity
Majjhima Nikaya 102.12
The Buddha despaired
Of teaching the dharma,
Knowing it hard
To intuit its depths.
sure, Buddha said: "This Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & passion, for a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment" (Majjhima Nikaya 26.19)
Your muddled conclusions
Do not affect emptiness;
Your denial of emptiness
Does not affect me.
:confused:this seems to reify or deify emptiness, turning into "God". emptiness is to be realised rather than worshiped
When emptiness is possible,
Everything is possible;
Were emptiness impossible,
Nothing would be possible.
this sounds like Taoism rather than Buddhism. Buddha taught if there was no emptiness, then ending suffering would not be possible
however, apart from that, its seems Nargajuna has used the term "emptiness" synonymous to "dependent origination" & "impermanence"
thus, if there was no impermanence, how could bodies live by removing food from the earth & digesting the food? if there was no dependent origination (cause & effect), how could medicine cure disease?
there are infinite examples of how impermanence and cause & effect make everything possible
except Nirvana. in reality, impermanence and cause & effect do not make Nirvana possible. Nargajuna seems gravely in error with this
true emptiness makes Nirvana possible but Nargajuna, making emptiness synonymous with dependent origination & impermanence, makes Nirvana impossible
In projecting your faults onto me,
You forget the horse you are riding.
:confused: fighting shadows...irrelevant superstition. it seems Nargajuna lived at a time when there were Buddhist universities and the various intellectual scholars competed with eachother
To see things existing by nature,
Is to see them without
Causes or conditions,
Thus subverting causality,
Agents, tools and acts,
Starting, stopping and ripening.
i am not sure what the translation is saying here. "existing by nature" seems to mean "existing" as an "inherent thing" seen in an natural (i.e., ordinary unenlightened) way
so here, Nargajuna is highlighting there are essentially no "things" because all things are ultimately a collection of various parts, for which the parts of parts digress infinitely into smaller & smaller causes & conditions, to the atomic & subatomic level
Contingency is emptiness
Which, contingently configured,
Is the middle way.
Everything is contingent;
Everything is empty.
this is the Mahayana view created by Nargajuna, that conditionality (cause & effect; dependent origination) is emptiness
(however, Buddha did not really teach emptiness like this)
Were everything not empty,
There would be no rising and passing.
Ennobling truths would not exist.
Without contingency
How could I suffer pain?
Here, N has equated non-emptiness with "thingness". It is saying if everything was not comprised of causes & conditions, there would be no rising & passing. It is also saying if there was no cause & effect, things depending on other things, there could be no suffering because suffering occurs when causes & conditions change. For example, the cause of our happiness is being in love with a certain person. When that person changes, we suffer due to the change (impermanence) of that cause our love & happiness depends on.
However, the logic here is flawed & backwards. Buddha taught there is emptiness because of impermanence rather than there is impermanence due to emptiness. Buddha taught when emptiness is realised, suffering stops. But Nargajuna appears to be saying because of emptiness, suffering exists. N is saying: "Without contigency [which he equates with emptiness] how could I suffer pain?"]
This shifting anguish
Has no nature of its own;
If it did, how could it have a cause?
Deny emptiness and you deny
The origins of suffering.
Apart from N's continued misperceiving of emptiness, the essence of this verse is pure reality & Buddhism. Suffering has no nature of its own. Suffering is dependent on causes & conditions. When this causes & conditions cease, suffering ceases. This is the teaching of the Buddhas.
If anguish existed by nature,
How would it ever cease?
Absolute misery could never stop.
How could you cultivate a path
That exists by nature?
How could it lead to the end of pain?
A path on which you tread
Can have no essence of its own.
N seems totally confused here. He seems to be denying Nirvana, i.e., the unconditioned. Nirvana has its own essence & the path is setting the mind in the Nirvanic state, i.e., free from craving.
If confusion existed by nature,
I would always be confused.
How could I know anything?
Letting go and realizing,
Cultivation and fruition
Could never happen.
The essence of this verse is pure reality & Buddhism. Confusion has no nature of its own. Confusion is dependent on causes & conditions. When this causes & conditions cease, confusion ceases. With the development of wisdom, confusion can end, because is dependent on causes & conditions. This is the teaching of the Buddhas.
Who can attain absolute goals
That by nature are unattainable?
Since no one could reach them,
There would be no community;
With no truths, no dharma either.
With no community or dharma
How could I awaken?
I would not depend on awakening
Nor awakening on me.
A naturally unawakened person
Would never awaken
No matter how hard
He practiced for its sake.
He would never do good or evil;
An unempty person would do nothing.
He'd experience fruits of good and evil
Without having done good or evil deeds.
How can fruits of good and evil not be empty
If they are experienced?
To subvert emptiness and contingency
Is to subvert conventions of the world.
It engenders passivity;
Acts without an author,
Authors who do not act.
Beings would not be born or die;
They would be frozen in time,
Alien to variety.
If things were unempty,
You could attain nothing.
Anguish would never end.
You would never let go of compulsive acts.
To see contingency is to see
Anguish, its origins, cessation and the path.
Out of time.
Buddha taught his teachings were so well proclaimed by him, plain, open, explicit, free of patchwork. (Majjhima Nikaya 22.42)
But Nargajuna is certainly a challenge & excellent for studies in intellectual philosophy.
Good luck to those handling the snake & spell N has caste.
;D
Note: the replies in yellow colour are not replies for Elyse. They are a critique of N and thus not relevant for Elyse's purpose.