Nagarjuna as the true interpret of the doctrine?

[PeterB]

I think the fact that Nagarjuna is a Mahayanist is ABSOLUTELY the point.

If you regard people as Theravada-"ins" and Mahayana-"ists", thinking and judging in these terms, aren't you basically adopting a form of sakaya-ditthi, which is contrary to the teachings of both schools of thought?

As I see it, Theravadins and Mahayanists are just like Republicans and Democrats.

Wait, that might offend people... Sorry... We're ALL Democrats here (no Republicans here except me).

Another restatement of the Mahayana view ( or at least Mahayana Naif ) which thinks its is radical.

[tobes]

It depends greatly on how Nagarjuna is interpreted.....and he is interpreted in a number of very distinct ways.

We have been having quite a robust debate about this on the Mahayana Dharma Wheel.

My own position is that I think that it is very clear that he is responding to Sarvastivadan realism, and in that sense, he is clarifying the position of earlier Buddhisms rather than refuting them or presenting a radical break.

As someone pointed out earlier on this thread, the Buddha did not make strong metaphysical assertions about the nature of phenomenal world; this started to occur during the period of Abhidharma scholasticism.

In this respect, I think that Nagarjuna's main intent is to point out that all of the core Buddhist teachings (for example the four noble truths) are premised on the logic of dependent origination. It is only on the basis of dependent origination that a soteriological path leading from samsara to nirvana is possible; that an ethics of kusala cultivation can be established.

So in many respects I think that if one is well grounded in the Pali suttas, a likely response to Nagarjuna would be something like "So? Of course!"

[retrofuturist]

Metta,
Retro.

[Ñāṇa]

It depends greatly on how Nagarjuna is interpreted.....and he is interpreted in a number of very distinct ways.

We have been having quite a robust debate about this on the Mahayana Dharma Wheel.

The Pāli dhamma is every bit as radical, if not moreso, than anything of importance that Nāgārjuna ever said.

All the best,

Geoff

[retrofuturist]

Hence, Tobes' final sentence... "So in many respects I think that if one is well grounded in the Pali suttas, a likely response to Nagarjuna would be something like "So? Of course!""

Metta,
Retro.

[Ñāṇa]

The reference was to Tobes characterization of "radical" in the context of the discussion on Dharma Wheel. I'm suggesting that both the Pāli dhamma and Nāgārjuna are more "radical" than Tobes interpretation. Certainly, the view presented in the Pāli Tipiṭaka accords with what Nāgār­juna was getting at. Ven. Ñāṇananda:

Teach­ers like Nāgār­juna brought to light what was already there [in the Pāli suttas] but was hid­den from view. Unfor­tu­nately his later fol­low­ers turned it in to a vāda....

When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubt­ing Ven. Nāgārjuna’s san­ity. But the work needs to be under­stood in the con­text. He was tak­ing a jab at the Sarvāstivādins. To be hon­est, even the oth­ers deserve the rebuke, although they now try to get away by using Sarvās­tivāda as an excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgār­juna must have been, to com­pose those verses so ele­gantly and fill­ing them with so much mean­ing, like the Dhamma­pada verses. It’s quite amazing.

All the best,

Geoff

[tiltbillings]

The reference was to Tobes characterization of "radical" in the context of the discussion on Dharma Wheel.

Link, please.

[Ñāṇa]

Link, please.

The discussion is in this thread.

All the best,

Geoff

[tiltbillings]

Link, please.

The discussion is in this thread.

All the best,

Geoff

Thanks.

[PeterB]

The reference was to Tobes characterization of "radical" in the context of the discussion on Dharma Wheel. I'm suggesting that both the Pāli dhamma and Nāgārjuna are more "radical" than Tobes interpretation. Certainly, the view presented in the Pāli Tipiṭaka accords with what Nāgār­juna was getting at. Ven. Ñāṇananda:

Teach­ers like Nāgār­juna brought to light what was already there [in the Pāli suttas] but was hid­den from view. Unfor­tu­nately his later fol­low­ers turned it in to a vāda....

When I first read the Kārikā I too was doubt­ing Ven. Nāgārjuna’s san­ity. But the work needs to be under­stood in the con­text. He was tak­ing a jab at the Sarvāstivādins. To be hon­est, even the oth­ers deserve the rebuke, although they now try to get away by using Sarvās­tivāda as an excuse. How skilled Ven. Nāgār­juna must have been, to com­pose those verses so ele­gantly and fill­ing them with so much mean­ing, like the Dhamma­pada verses. It’s quite amazing.

All the best,

Geoff

We are in your debt ( and Ven Nananada's of course ) once more Geoff.