I have seen people state that the Buddha taught quietism, which is closely related to this type of suspension of judgement. I assumed this usually is based on viewing the Buddha through a Nagarjuna influenced lens (Nagarjuna on views below). Nagarjuna was influenced by Pyrrhonism (see below), which was influenced by Buddhism. I always assumed this was all Mahayana, because the Pali texts call the sceptics Amaravikkhepikas (eel wrigglers), and "a product of sheer stupidity" (wiki page on ajnana) and the Buddha did not talk in riddling speech all the time, always suspending judgment, but frequently gave straight answers on questions, especially on moral conduct. Then I saw the following:Agnosticism: "I don't think so. I don't think in that
way or otherwise. I don't think not or not not."
Suspension of judgement.
-Wikpedia page on Sramana
Sanjaya of the Ajnana school was the teacher of Moggallana and Sariputta. The Atthakavagga contains a strong element of skepticism.
Does this mean that Ajnana is the source for the Buddha's true teaching, and that this filtered through to Phyrro, and then to Nagarjuna, and so the hyper sceptical position of these Greek and then Mahayana schools of thought are the authentic teaching, while the other thousands of teachings are mere riddles to be overcome in favor of this true teaching?Interpretations
Speaking generally, the Aṭṭhakavagga and the Pārāyanavagga tend more strongly to emphasize the negative (i.e. those of abstention) sides of asceticism,[note 2] and show a strong concern with letting go of views, regulating everyday bodily activities, and sexual desires.[4] The Atthakavagga does not give a clear-cut goal such as nirvana, but describes the ideal person.[5] This ideal person is especially characterized by suddhi (purity) and santi (calmness).[5] The Aṭṭhakavagga also places considerable emphasis on the rejection of, or non-attachment to, all views, and is reluctant to put forward positions of their own regarding basic metaphysical issues.[1][5][6][7]
Pre-Buddhist or proto-Madhyamaka
Gomez compared them to later Madhyamaka philosophy, which in its Prasaṅgika form especially makes a method of rejecting others' views rather than proposing its own.[1]
Interpretation as heterodox
Tillman Vetter, although agreeing overall with Gomez's observations, suggests some refinements on historical and doctrinal grounds.[8] First, he notes that neither of these short collections of suttas are homogeneous and hence are not all amenable to Gomez' proposals. According to Vetter, those suttas which do lend support to Gomez probably originated with a heterodox ascetic group[clarification needed] that pre-dated the Buddha, and were integrated into the Buddhist Sangha at an early date, bringing with them some suttas that were already in existence and also composing further suttas in which they tried to combine their own teachings with those of the Buddha.[8]
Interpretation as orthodox
Paul Fuller has rejected the arguments of Gomez and Vetter.[7] He finds that
... the Nikayas and the Atthakavagga present the same cognitive attitude toward views, wrong or right.[9]
Fuller states that in the Nikayas, right-view includes non-dependence on knowledge and views, and mentions the Buddha's simile of his dhamma as a raft that must be abandoned. He finds that the Atthakavagga's treatment of knowledge and wisdom is parallel to the later Patthana's apparent criticism of giving, holding the precepts, the duty of observance, and practicing the jhanas. In his view, both texts exhibit this particular approach not as an attack on practice or knowledge, but to point out that attachment to the path is destructive.[9] Similarly, the text's treatment of concentration meditation is intended to warn against attachment to insight, and communicate that insight into the nature of things necessarily involves a calm mind.[9]
Alexander Wynne also rejects both of Vetter's claims that the Parayanavagga shows a chronological stratification, and a different attitude toward mindfulness and liberating insight than do other works.[10][note 3]
Theravada interpretation
The Theravada tradition has taken the view that the text's statements, including many which are clearly intended to be paradoxical, are meant to be puzzled over and explicated. An extended commentary attributed to Sariputta, entitled the Mahaniddesa, was included in the Canon. It seeks to reconcile the content of the poems with the teachings in the rest of the discourses.[web 1]
Wikipedia page on Atthakavagga and Parayanavagga
If so, and the Buddha's teaching can ultimately be reduced to Ajnana, then are all the moral lessons and meditation techniques and such mere tests and riddles to be abandoned for the true position which is suspension of all views, rather than just the wrong views? Is the Eightfold Path to be abandoned? Is morality to be abandoned? And so on?
Is the rejection of the Ajnana position and denigration of it a misdirect, a trick, another riddle to be overcome and realize that this school's teaching is exactly what one is supposed to learn?
Seems strange to go through 45 years of teaching very specific teachings, including Right View, when all he really meant was "Have absolutely zero views. and abandon even Right View" If this is true, then why didn't he just teach the exact same thing as the Ajnanas? Nagarjuna had no difficulty articulating these things clearly and directly, whereas the Buddha emphasized Right View and many other views constantly, and never, to my knowledge, said that one must abandon all views, obviously because this would also entail abandoning Buddhism itself.
Nagarjuna's teachings delineated below are nearly identical to Pyrrhonism, do we find the same in the Pali suttas with a firm trend? A trend that outpaces it's opposite: the frequent teachings that there are right views and other things to be accepted by the wise student, as opposed to this idea that the wisest reject literally everything, without exception?
Do we find even one sutta where the Buddha states anything like Nagarjuna below, that we must abandon all views? Do we interpret the abandoning the raft sutta as such? Or could this sutta merely be speaking about the Arahant being independent of the Dhamma, yet still holding right view; he simply does not need the raft any longer? Or perhaps it is speaking about Parinibbana, wherein one leaves everything behind, which doesn't mean abandoning Right View while alive and propagating Dhamma.
Did the Buddha ever say that even those that have the Right View taught by him, or the view of his teachings on emptiness are, as Nagarjuna said of those that hold his own teachings on emptiness as views, "incorrigible", or anything of the sort? Did he ever say that, yet again, like Nagarjuna below, that he personally had no position whatsoever?
If so, then... what? Forget the Dhamma and enjoy your life? Seems too simple to reduce the 80, 000 page Pali Canon to mere extreme, viewless, positionless scepticism.
Nagarjuna on views
Nāgārjuna is famous for arguing that his philosophy was not a view, and that he in fact did not take any position (paksa) or thesis (pratijña) whatsoever since this would just be another form of clinging to some form of existence.[77][64] In his Vigrahavyavartani, Nāgārjuna states:
If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all. If there were anything to be observed through direct perception and the other instances [of valid cognition], it would be something to be established or rejected. However, since no such thing exists, I cannot be criticized.[78]
Likewise in his Sixty Stanzas on Reasoning, Nāgārjuna says: "By taking any standpoint whatsoever, you will be snatched by the cunning snakes of the afflictions. Those whose minds have no standpoint, will not be caught." [79] Randall Collins states that for Nāgārjuna, ultimate reality is simply the idea that "no concepts are intelligible", while Ferrer notes that Nagarjuna criticized those whose mind held any "positions and beliefs", including the view of emptiness, as Nāgārjuna says: "The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible."[80][81] Aryadeva echoes this idea in his Four Hundred Verses:
"First, one puts an end to what is not meritorious. In the middle, one puts an end to identity. Later, one puts an end to all views. Those who understand this are skilled."[82]
-Wikipedia page on Madhyamaka
Pyrrhonism
Main article: Similarities between Pyrrhonism and Buddhism
Because of the high degree of similarity between Madhyamaka and Pyrrhonism,[100] Thomas McEvilley[101] and Matthew Neale[102][103] suspect that Nāgārjuna was influenced by Greek Pyrrhonist texts imported into India. Pyrrho of Elis (c. 360-c. 270 BCE), who is credited with founding this school of skeptical philosophy, was himself influenced by Buddhist philosophy[104] during his stay in India with Alexander the Great's army.
-Wiki page on Madhyamaka
