Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by tiltbillings »

waterchan wrote:
Dan74 wrote:
waterchan wrote:Tilt, I am unfamiliar with Nagarjuna. You seem to think that Nagarjuna has something valuable to contribute to Theravada, but I cannot take seriously his claim about having dibs on the true Tipitaka that he retrieved from the Naga realm, besides other claims. Please point out where I am wrong.
(With apologies to Tilt)

Nagarjuna (like Vasubandhu etc) had many things ascribed to him, some probably many centuries later, and we probably shouldn't let that get in the way of appreciating Mulamadhyamakakarika, say.
Assuming the Mulamadhyamakakarika is an original work of Nagarjuna and not a misattribution, Nagarjuna said that nirvana and samsara are the same and "not even a subtle interval can be found" between them.

If I interpret this at face value, it flies in the face of the goal of liberation from samsara. If I have to interpret it at deeper than face value, then that's really an unnecessary stretch of the imagination, is it not?
The problem with your objection is that you need to look at the context of the statement in question. As for the Nagas, I know of no place that Nagarjuna made that claim of himself, and it is not unlike claims one can find in the Theravada. Few if any religions or religious figure is free of that sort of thing.

David Kaluphana did a translation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, (which may be online somewhere) looking at it from a standpoint of Pali suttas, and the fact that a number of Tibetan Buddhism scholars got cranky about it speaks in its favor. It is worth a read. Also, Ven Nanananda has had things of interest to say about the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā in the context of the suttas. As for where those things are to be found, I'll leave that to the Ven Nanananda experts here to point you in that direction, and you can look above, where I do believe that mentioned (but, alas, the link in broken).
>> 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
waterchan
Posts: 699
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Kamaloka

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by waterchan »

tiltbillings wrote: The problem with your objection is that you need to look at the context of the statement in question. As for the Nagas, I know of no place that Nagarjuna made that claim of himself, and it is not unlike claims one can find in the Theravada. Few if any religions or religious figure is free of that sort of thing.
So you're saying that the Naga claim is commentarial, like the claim that the Abhidhamma was spoken by the Buddha in the Tavatimsa heaven for three months non-stop.
tiltbillings wrote:Also, Ven Nanananda has had things of interest to say about the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā in the context of the suttas. As for where those things are to be found, I'll leave that to the Ven Nanananda experts here to point you in that direction, and you can look above, where I do believe that mentioned (but, alas, the link in broken).
Thanks, I look forward to reading / watching that.
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by Ceisiwr »

In terms of Ven. Nagarjuna I would say that this:
To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism. Therefore a wise person does not say "exists" or "does not exist".
Sounds about right.


http://promienie.net/images/dharma/book ... karika.pdf
“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
confusedlayman
Posts: 6236
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by confusedlayman »

yes he is. he really takes the reader deep in to final liberation just by reading his stanzas. it really changed many wrong views I had. I think its the best wisdom book i ever read in life. He is truly enlightened and also gifted with knowledge of helping others thourgh teaching. if u read his emptiness and casuality u know how enlightened people perceive this world.

I validated his stanzas and found to be true and if u want i can help u. unless u understand his stanzas of emptiness by own expeirnece u didnt have right view belonging to supermundane .. that book is a test to know where u stand in dhamma. I think he is the master who can pull the people from mundane to supermundane but in suttas most teaching concern with munande like heavens etc... In nagarjuna, he focus on supermundane where one goes beyong all wrong views or all views and emphasis on non movement of mind thorugh wisdom wowowowowowowowowow.

I thank tibetian buddhism for safe gaurding his work and i request all to read and discuss about the work in this forum it will lead one to see nibbana just by reading, ponding and validating it with logic. Who ever says they cant understand, Ill help but dont give up. pali canon is basic teaching but only after reading nagarjuna true emptiness perception is gained. there is no orgination and no cessation. if u read palicanon u will see only origination and cessation because pali canon is mundane focused 80% and nagarjuna is radical, revolutionary and he is one of the arhant (if not boddisatta) i am convinvinced. His work, vissudhimagga, abhidhamma, suttas of theraveda dont contracict anything they all same and point to same thing... u come into contradiction because u understand conventional reality when in the pdf its givien in ultimate reality context and vice versa.. other than that all are same teaching and pls think and discuss about it ...It is good that u reading nagarjuna emptiness.. if u understand it for sure then u are not worlding.. many monks in bihar around 10th century got deafeated by stupid king udayana who defeated the buddhist monk of india using his logic (book Nyayakusumanjali).. because buddhiost monk didnt have nagarjunas emptiness understanding. buddhist monk of 10th century dwell or graps on conventional reality and they lost debate .. wrong view monks defeated by wrong view hindu king leading to decline of buddhism. If , nagarjuna emptiness understand is there those monks wouldnt been defeated. it mandatory to learn nagarjuna emptiness if one want to make quick progress and attain irreversible stage. its better to gradually learn than to not learn and go to hell.
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:40 pm In terms of Ven. Nagarjuna I would say that this:
To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism. Therefore a wise person does not say "exists" or "does not exist".
Sounds about right.
Doesn't sound right at all. The above appears to be a complete misunderstanding of terminology. There are scores of suttas where the Buddha is reported to have said: "This exists" and "this does not exist".

* 'Nihilism' is denial of the efficacy of kamma, denial of causality, denial of benefaction & other worlds; & other denials (MN 60).

* 'Annihilationism' is the view a 'self' or 'existent being' is annihilated at death (DN 1; Iti 49; SN 22.85; etc). It is a 'self-view'.

* 'Annihilationism' is also used (SN 12.17) to refer to believing another (external) self is the cause of suffering to oneself (the internal self).

But the statement 'it is not' is not necessarily the view of nihilism. For example, the statement 'the five aggregates are not a self' is not nihilism.

Nagarjuna appeared to misconstrue (mannati) SN 12.15. SN 12.15 is the only sutta with the terms 'atthita' & 'natthita', which Nagarjuna appeared to misconstrue.
confusedlayman wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:55 pm he really takes the reader deep in to final liberation just by reading his stanzas.
I say his stanzas are papanca & often wrong.
confusedlayman wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:55 pmI validated his stanzas and found to be true
So you are claiming to have been taken deep in to final liberation, even though you recently wrote about habitual behaviours you have, which are the embodiment of regarding those things to be true, real & pleasurable.
confusedlayman wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:55 pm I thank tibetian buddhism
Then you can join this forum and express thanks there: https://dharmawheel.net/
confusedlayman wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:55 pm His work, vissudhimagga, abhidhamma, suttas of theraveda dont contracict anything they all same and point to same thing...
Obviously, the ramblings of Nagajuna contradict Theravada. I have written about it many times.
confusedlayman wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:55 pm it mandatory to learn nagarjuna emptiness if one want to make quick progress and attain irreversible stage.
Nagarjuna is not vipassana. It is intellectual philosophy that cannot uproot defilements to irreversible stage
confusedlayman wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:55 pm its better to gradually learn than to not learn and go to hell.
The Pali suttas teach bad karma leads to hell. Avoiding hell does not always require enlightenment. It often simply requires following the precepts & having metta. :smile:
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
beanyan
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by beanyan »

Sacha G wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:12 pm Hi
In the pali canon it seems that the most profound suttas deal with:
- the Buddha not propounding a "view" (no clinging to views)
- the khandhas being empty (as in the Phena Sutta)
- the Buddha propounding a "middle way" between eternalism and annihilition
- self and not self being both views (and therefore wrong)

All this sounds more like Nagarjuna than like Abhidhamma, IMO.
What do you think?

None of that is particularly profound and some is extremely shallow.

Of course Buddha propounds a view. That's why his view is called right view. This is a duh.

The khandas are not empty as in just empty. They are merely empty of ultimate importance due to their impermanence and due to not being the self.

The middle way is between static unchanging ism and nihilism, not between eternalism and anhihilationism.

As to to self and non self both being views and therefore wrong its silly as Buddha did indeed propound a view, and because you cannot function without accepting that there is in fact a self. Anatta is just about what you can eliminate so that you can by process of elimination determine what is the self.

HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT: you are right that Nagarjuna invented the shallow sillyness that you outlined as "profound." Buddha didn't teach this crap. Nagasena, Buddhaghosa, and Nagarjuna invented it. And fake suttas teaching it were added to the canon. But not to the Dhammapada which is where Buddha's authentic teaching is found without question.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by cappuccino »

DooDoot wrote: Avoiding hell does not always require enlightenment. It often simply requires following the precepts & having metta. :smile:
:goodpost:
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by cappuccino »

beanyan wrote: Anatta is just about what you can eliminate so that you can by process of elimination determine what is the self.
your understanding is insufficient at this time


On Self, No Self, and Not-self
beanyan
Posts: 288
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by beanyan »

cappuccino wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:50 pm
beanyan wrote: Anatta is just about what you can eliminate so that you can by process of elimination determine what is the self.
your understanding is insufficient at this time
Rather I have determined that all suttas which say "you are not allowed to say a thing nor its opposite" are false. I'm not playing the inerrantists game that is for fools anymore. Suttas saying "you are not allowed to say a thing nor its opposite" are fake suttas created by heavy handed monastery leaders centuries later to enlist fake sayings attributed to Buddha in their political correctness war to force monks to not argue important points of doctrine anymore (like is nibbana anihilation or exalted afterlife, etc.)
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by cappuccino »

beanyan wrote: Rather I have determined that all suttas which say "you are not allowed to say a thing nor its opposite" are false.
similar to the atheist position


faith is required
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings beanyan,

Of course Buddha propounds a view. That's why his view is called right view. This is a duh.
Of course, in the end we should let go of right view as well. It’s only a raft after all. It’s a fabrication and so it’s anicca, dukkha and anatta.

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .irel.html

Metta

:)
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Of course, in the end we should let go of right view as well.
that would result in the wrong view


the right is always right
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by Ceisiwr »

cappuccino wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:01 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Of course, in the end we should let go of right view as well.
that would result in the wrong view


the right is always right
No, since abandoning right view doesn’t mean you then adopt another view. In the end everything is let go of, including the concepts used in right view. Otherwise, you are stuck with dukkha still.

Metta

:)
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: In the end everything is let go of, including the concepts used in right view.
the word truth should be understood


that which is in accordance with fact or reality
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

Post by Ceisiwr »

cappuccino wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:04 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: In the end everything is let go of, including the concepts used in right view.
the word truth should be understood
I would say not getting lost in and stuck on fabrications should be understood, i.e. concepts, words and views.

Metta

:)
“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.”
Post Reply