Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Did Nāgārjuna accept momentariness?
“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.”
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.”
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Depends on which "Venerable Nāgārjuna" you are talking about. The "Venerable Nāgārjuna" who "authored" the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa takes pain to reconcile the Prajñāpāramitā with an AFAIK essentially-Sarvāstivādin theory of "the moments" that gets "Mahāyāna-ized." The author of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā polemicizes against the three moments of arising, abiding, and ceasing.
Atomism and momentary thinking from the apocryphal Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. This was traditionally believed to be a work by Ven Nāgārjuna in East Asia, but that is an incorrect attribution IMO. In this case it's not "only me" who thinks that. From the Ven Migme Chodron translation at WisdomLibrary:
The parable of the city of gandharvas describes how the three marks of the conditioned are like a mirage that vanishes as you approach it. From a distance, they look like three discrete atomic units of time. "Up close" (i.e. "in yogic equipoise"), it is claimed that they disappear entirely as discrete entities.
The same treatise also includes the "sixteen moments" of the path of seeing and other moments related to the "five paths."
Atomism and momentary thinking from the apocryphal Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. This was traditionally believed to be a work by Ven Nāgārjuna in East Asia, but that is an incorrect attribution IMO. In this case it's not "only me" who thinks that. From the Ven Migme Chodron translation at WisdomLibrary:
The first bolding is the momentaryism. The second bolding begins the Madhyamaka-style refutation of the three moments. The refutation is clearer in the Saṃskṛtaparīkṣā, the 7th chapter of the MMK, and presented in concise form in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. What is important here, IMO, is the clarification that the moments are "like a water torrent or the flame of a lamp." In Madhyamaka Buddhism, just as in earlier Buddhisms, the basic unit for measuring time is the "moment." The Sarvāstivādins have 60 in a finger's snap. According to the Madhyamaka that I am familiar with, if one is to speak of "moments" at all, one needs to think of them as infinitely small, endlessly present in anything let alone a finger's snap, and perhaps even mutually overlapping and transforming.Furthermore, all dharmas are grouped into two categories: i) material dharmas, and ii) non-material dharmas. Material dharmas can be divided down to the subtle atom and endless dispersion, as we have seen in regard to the refutation of the gift given in the chapter on Danāpāramitā. Non-material dharmas are not cognized by the five faculties. Therefore it is by means of considering the moment of birth-duration-destruction of the mind that we know that the mind is composed of parts. Since it consists of parts, it is transitory; being transitory, it is empty; being empty, it is nonexistent. In the time of a finger-snap, there are sixty moments ; in each moment, the mind is born and ceases; but as it arises in a series, we know that this is a mind of desire, a mind of anger, or a mind of delusion, a mind of faith, or a pure mind of wisdom or rapture. The ascetic considers the arising and cessation of the mind to be like a water torrent or the flame of a lamp: this is called crossing the threshold of knowledge of emptiness.
The parable of the city of gandharvas describes how the three marks of the conditioned are like a mirage that vanishes as you approach it. From a distance, they look like three discrete atomic units of time. "Up close" (i.e. "in yogic equipoise"), it is claimed that they disappear entirely as discrete entities.
The same treatise also includes the "sixteen moments" of the path of seeing and other moments related to the "five paths."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Looking back, this is a bit wrong and I should clarify it. The "moment" of time in Madhyamaka and Madhyamaka-influenced forms of Buddhism I am familiar with is used to delineate and demarcate, to differentiate one "moment" from another, but not to "measure." The "moment" of time used to measure is like the Sarvāstivādin's, where there are 60 or so per finger's snap. Some kinds of Buddhism that present themselves as "Madhyamaka," like many Tibetan schools, believe in the Sarvāstivādin-style moment where there are 60 per finger's snap or some concrete number like that. This is because of the apocryphal Nagarjuna corpus, which includes things like pseudo-Sarvāstivādin pseudo-Abhidharma treatises. Eventually, via the Nagarjuna apocrypha, even things like atomism make their way back into some kinds of Madhyamaka. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa is but one apocryphon in this tradition, and that one is East Asia-specific. There is also the Tibetan Nagarjuna apocrypha, etc.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
More from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa apocryphon. It treads a strange line, on one hand wanting to use the moments to illustrate the impermanence of the mind and on the other hand insisting that they have no duration as per Madhyamaka and the Prajñāpāramitā:
That's called having your cake and eating it too.
(Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa on "The Four Foundations of Mindfulness," from the same translation)The yogin also says to himself: “It is because of happiness that one becomes attached to the body; but who is experiencing this happiness?” Having reflected, he knows that feeling comes from the mind. It is following mental elation and a misunderstanding that beings experience a given happiness. The yogin must take into account that the mind which is transitory has the nature of being born and perishing and lasts for only a moment, is unable to experience happiness. It is by mistake that a person claims to feel happiness. Why? At the very moment when one wishes to experience happiness, the mind has already changed; at the moment when the happiness arises, the mind is another mind. There is no connection between happiness and the mind. How could it be said that the mind experiences happiness?
The past mind, being already destroyed, does not experience the happiness; the future mind, being not yet born, does not experience the happiness; the present mind, being momentary and fleeting, does not have the awareness to experience the happiness.
Question. – We accept that the past mind and the future mind cannot experience happiness. But the present mind, which endures for a moment, must experience happiness. How can you say that it does not?
Answer. – I have just said that, being fleeting, it does not have the awareness to experience happiness.
Besides, being impermanent in nature, all dharmas have no span of duration. If mind lasted for a moment, it would also last during the second moment. It would then be eternal in duration and without the nature of disappearing. And yet, among the three characteristics of conditioned dharmas, the Buddha also mentioned the characteristic of disappearance. If the mind did not have disappearance, it would not show the characteristics of the conditioned.
Furthermore, if dharmas suffered a destruction a posteriori, we would know that they possessed it already a priori. Thus, when a person clothes himself in a new garment, if on the same day that he puts it in, the garment is not yet old, it would not be old on the second day either, and so on for ten years: the garment would always be new and never old. In truth, the garment was already old, and we should know that [this ageing] coexisted with its newness. But since this ageing was subtle, we were not aware of it. It is only in the presence of old things that we notice it. This is why we know that dharmas do not have a time of duration. How then could the mind last long enough to be able to experience happiness? Since it has no duration, it is impossible that it experiences happiness.
This is why we know that there is nothing that can truly experience happiness. [A mind ‘experiencing happiness’] is a purely conventional entity: we speak of a single entity experiencing happiness as a result of the succession of minds.
That's called having your cake and eating it too.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Greetings,
Metta,
Paul.
You mean the theory that says dhammas do not exist, then do exist, then do not exist... all within an infinitesimal amount of time?
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
-
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Would this count as a 'connection'?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:29 pm Greetings,
You mean the theory that says dhammas do not exist, then do exist, then do not exist... all within an infinitesimal amount of time?
Metta,
Paul.
I don't recall such teachings in the suttas.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
Greetings,
Metta,
Paul.
To Theravada, yes.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
-
- Posts: 1802
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:20 am
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
You live & learn
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
If one looks at chapter 15 "Examination of Essence" of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, it becomes evident that Nagarjuna must have had access to Sutta SN 12.15 in the Pali Canon - and that "Katyayana" is another version of "Kaccānagotta "
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato
This is also mentioned in the secondary sources on the following page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kacc%C4%81nagotta_Sutta
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
More likely one of the parallels. See:Aloka wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:13 amIf one looks at chapter 15 of the Mulamadhyamakakarika, it becomes evident that Nagarjuna must have had access to Sutta SN 12.15 in the Pali Canon - and that "Katyayana" is another version of "Kaccānagotta "
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato
SN 12.15, SA 301, SF 168. Kaccānagotta Sutta and its parallels.
viewtopic.php?t=26456
Notably,
Considering that Sarvastivada translates roughly as "the theory of all exists", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvastivada, this is significant.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2016 12:51 am Here is Sylvester's other point: That the Chinese and Sanskrit ("Northern") versions lost the
“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.
part of SN21.15, and therefore misinterpreted what the "middle way" was referring to:...Sylvester wrote: However, the loss of the "The All exists"and "The All does not exist" passages proved particularly acute for the Northern Buddhists, as their sutra became dislocated from the pre-Buddhist context. It does not help that SN 12.47 and SN 12.48 do not seem to have survived in the Agamas either. Even if echoes of the Upanisadic "sarvaṃ asti" survived in the memory of the Northern schools, it did not help that the Sarvastivadins adopted a similar-sounding but unrelated motif, which gave rise to so much spilled ink over the issue of svabhāva that detains Ven Nanananda today.
Let it be said - the Buddha was not in the least bit interested in the question of own-being or essence of dhammas.
Mike
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
In his article "Between Arhat and Bodhisattva," Ajahn Amaro (Abbot of Amaravati Theravada Monastery UK) mentions SN 12.15 and Nagarjuna in the section "The Middle Way" (see link below).
https://info-buddhism.com/Between_Arhat ... Amaro.html
https://info-buddhism.com/Between_Arhat ... Amaro.html
- confusedlayman
- Posts: 6258
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
- Location: Human Realm (as of now)
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
why care about momentariness ? all u need to care is if u are still fabrication thoughts based on ignorance or not ...
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
I certainly respect Ajahn Amaro, but when that article was written (over ten years ago, I believe) he may not have been aware of the differences between SN12.15 and the Northern agama's that Nagarjuna was most probably familiar with. It's interesting that a key difference is that absence of the part he quotes in the Northern versions.Aloka wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:08 am In his article "Between Arhat and Bodhisattva," Ajahn Amaro (Abbot of Amaravati Theravada Monastery UK) mentions SN 12.15 and Nagarjuna in the section "The Middle Way" (see link below).
https://info-buddhism.com/Between_Arhat ... Amaro.html
Mike
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: Nāgārjuna and Momentariness
I assume it's meant as a way of developing an insight into anicca, though IMO it's sufficient to notice how quickly the mind changes, or how quickly attention switches between various objects. And over longer time scales you can notice the bodily changes due to illness and/or ageing.confusedlayman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:15 am why care about momentariness ? all u need to care is if u are still fabrication thoughts based on ignorance or not ...
Buddha save me from new-agers!