Critique of Nāgārjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Ceisiwr »

For those interested, Richard P. Hayes has some interesting criticisms of Venerable Nāgārjuna's ideas
At least one of these claims—the last one— is false, for it is a universal proposition that can be falsified by citing a counterexample. I can cite myself as a counterexample to the proposition that “anyone who spends any time with Nāgārjuna’s thought inevitably develops a deep respect for this master philosopher.” Although I have worked with Nāgārjuna’s texts off and on for more than thirty years, I am afraid I have not yet developed a deep respect for his thought, nor do I regard him as a masterful philosopher. Indeed, I could go on to say that, perhaps because of some profound insensitivity on my part I see very little of either depth or beauty or philosophical poetry in Nāgārjuna’s work, nor can I claim to be either perplexed or infuriated by it. To make matters worse, I still have not changed my mind about Nāgārjuna’s influence since I wrote the following in 1994:

"Nāgārjuna’s writings had relatively little effect on the course of subsequent Indian Buddhist philosophy. Despite his apparent attempts to discredit some of the most fundamental concepts of abhidharma, abhidharma continued to flourish for centuries, without any appreciable attempt on the part of abhidharmikas to defend their methods of analysis against Nāgārjuna’s criticisms. And despite Nāgārjuna’s radical critique of the very possibility of having grounded knowledge (pramana), the epistemological school of Dignaga and Dharmakırti dominated Indian Buddhist intellectual circles, again without any explicit attempt to answer Nāgārjuna’s criticisms of their agenda. Aside from a few commentators on Nāgārjuna’s works, who identified themselves as Madhyamikas, Indian Buddhist intellectual life continued almost as if Nāgārjuna had never existed." (Hayes, 1994)
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... aradox.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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Ceisiwr »

An earlier work "Nāgārjuna's Appeal"

https://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/hayes1994.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
AlexBrains92
Posts: 1211
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Interesting :quote: criticisms summarized:

Nagarjuna's arguments are fallacious, and the proof of this is that hardly anyone tried to refute them :rolleye:

«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?

They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»


- Snp 4.5 -
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

I found the point about svabhāva in the second paper to be very weak, but I haven't yet had time to respond to it.
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.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:12 pm I found the point about svabhāva in the second paper to be very weak, but I haven't yet had time to respond to it.
It reminded me of debates we used to have. The claim that Venerable Nāgārjuna committed the fallacy of denying the antecedent was interesting.
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

It's a fine paper in some of its argumentation. I've only read the second one, and only about half of it as yet.

There's a lot of fluff that surrounds Venerable Nāgārjuna as a great logician. I consider him to be more an expositor than a logician, and his works to be more revelation than reason. Certainly, he makes use of reason. Typically, he makes use of reason to point out flaws he sees in the Ābhidharmika dharmavāda. Does he turn those analyses back onto the Dharma as he teaches it? Not as much, IMO. Various theses presented over the course of the MMK are not subject to the same level of critique as the theses of the Ābhidharmikas. That's certainly something you could say of the MMK.

Keep in mind though, I am only substantially familiar with the Chinese recension with the nested commentary from Ven Vimalākṣa. Ven Vimalākṣa, in explaining the root text, makes a much greater usage of autonomous syllogisms than the root text itself does.

Denying the antecedent:

If X, then Y.
If not X, then not Y.

This is only true if you establish that "via X" is the only way that you can have a "Y." Otherwise, it's denying the antecedent. Do I have that correct?
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.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

An example not given in the paper so far as I've read it:

In the Analysis of Nirvāṇa, Venerable Nāgārjuna argues that Nirvāṇa cannot be an existent, nor can it not exist, nor can it be both existent and nonexistent at the same time, etc., etc., we've all read this sort of negation.

When it comes time to establish Nirvāṇa as not both existing and not existing, Ven Nāgārjuna makes the argument that it is like how light and darkness are not in the same place. Existence and nonexistence are mutual opposites that cannot occupy the same place. However, this is not totally true.

When we look at our shadow on a sunny day, right there we see darkness and light in the same place. The shadow is not pitch-black and utterly devoid of light. Instead, it is comparatively darker, but still lit. Ven Nāgārjuna's example has a bit more weight if we consider that he is dealing exclusively in absolutes. Absolute brightness cannot mix with absolute darkness. But he doesn't qualify it in any such way in the actual text, even if we can imagine that as the underlying logic.
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.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:12 pm I found the point about svabhāva in the second paper to be very weak, but I haven't yet had time to respond to it.
From Nagarjuna's Appeal:
In his criticism of this view, Nāgārjuna plays on an ambiguity in "svabhāva," the word for own nature. The word "sva-bhāva" means a nature (bhāva) that belongs to the thing itself (svasya); it refers, in other words, to a thing's identity. But Nāgārjuna takes advantage of the fact that the word "svabhāva" could also be interpreted to mean the fact that a thing comes into being (bhavati) from itself (svatah.) or by itself (svena); on this interpretation, the term would refer to a thing's independence. Assuming this latter analysis of the word, rather than the one that most Buddhists actually held, Nāgārjuna then points out that whatever comes into being from conditions is not coming into being from itself; and if a thing does not come into being from itself, then it has no svabhāva.
(p. 311)

This is a very poor point. I have highlighted the blunder above. I can only imagine that perhaps it is because the author is only substantially familiar with the Theravādin Abhidhamma, and not the Abhidharmas of the other sects. In Theravādin Abhidharma, the sense of "nature" for svabhāva ("sabhāva" in Pāli) is privileged. Stepping outside of the confines of that school, and dare I say looking deeper into the contents taught by that school, you find quite a different picture than what the author unscholarly says is the one that "most Buddhists actually held." He is quite clearly and obviously wrong, something that his peers are no-doubt quite aware of. You can't be spectacularly wrong like this and have it not noticed.

(Also, note that he criticizes coinages like "self-existence" and "other-existence" and then himself says "own nature" ungrammatically.)
paramārthena sat svalakṣaṇena sad ityarthaḥ
To be existent as an absolute entity is to be existent as an intrinsic characteristic
(Sphuṭārthābhidharmakośavyākhyā as quoted in Venerable Dhammajoti's "Sarvastivada Abhidharma" p. 21)

As we can see, the svabhāva of X is not the svabhāva of Y. The existence of X is not the existence of Y, otherwise there would be no "Y" to speak of, but merely more of X.
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.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

We're going to have to move this to the Connections To Other Paths section (as this is not General Theravada discussion), and require some sort of connection to be made back to Theravada.

In the absence of that, the topic will be closed, and can be discussed instead at Dharma Wheel, or another suitable location.

:thanks:

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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by mikenz66 »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:40 am This is a very poor point. I have highlighted the blunder above. I can only imagine that perhaps it is because the author is only substantially familiar with the Theravādin Abhidhamma, and not the Abhidharmas of the other sects. In Theravādin Abhidharma, the sense of "nature" for svabhāva ("sabhāva" in Pāli) is privileged. Stepping outside of the confines of that school, and dare I say looking deeper into the contents taught by that school, you find quite a different picture than what the author unscholarly says is the one that "most Buddhists actually held." He is quite clearly and obviously wrong, something that his peers are no-doubt quite aware of. You can't be spectacularly wrong like this and have it not noticed.
That's an interesting point. Can you elaborate on the difference between the Pāli usage, and that of other sects?

Venerable Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda has some discussion of the MMK in Concept and Reality https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/:
P124 III PRAPANCA IN MAHâYâNA BUDDHISM
We have already discussed with special reference to the term
'Suññatâ', some of the limitations of the Mâdhyamika dialectic. Their
concept of the dialectical Middle Path, which even made them declare
that their position is 'no-position', ultimately ran into difficulties due
to lack of appreciation of the pragmatic approach. As to this latter
approach, the Theravâdins had it in good measure, even to .the extent
of ignoring the dialectical significance of the term 'papañca'. Hence
any rapprochement between the two systems on the question of
papañca will be of mutual benefit, as both will have much to learn and
unlearn by comparing notes.
:heart:
Mike
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by asahi »

Buddha taught the path to the ending of suffering , Nagarjuna taught philosophy .
Nagarjuna established his logics from the ultimate platform . Buddha taught without having insight into conventional truth one could not get to the "ultimate" truth . Buddha's teachings are pragmatic but Nagarjuna appears to be not realistic .
No bashing No gossiping
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10160
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Spiny Norman »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:44 pm Denying the antecedent:

If X, then Y.
If not X, then not Y.

This is only true if you establish that "via X" is the only way that you can have a "Y." Otherwise, it's denying the antecedent. Do I have that correct?
Yes, that sounds right.
Does this relate to specific conditionality, as in DO?
For example, craving is the only valid condition for clinging, so it's correct to infer that clinging ceases when craving ceases.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by mikenz66 »

asahi wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:13 am Buddha taught the path to the ending of suffering , Nagarjuna taught philosophy .
Nagarjuna established his logics from the ultimate platform . Buddha taught without having insight into conventional truth one could not get to the "ultimate" truth . Buddha's teachings are pragmatic but Nagarjuna appears to be not realistic .
I think Nagarjuna was a bit more nuanced than that. See Ven Ñāṇananda book that I linked to above and his various other writings, and comments, such as these quote from Questions and Answers: https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
Ñāṇananda wrote: “The five ascetics were given a teaching based on the ethical middle path, avoiding the two extremes of kāmasukhallikānuyoga and attakilamathānuyoga. But the middle path of right view is found in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, beautifully used by Ven. Nāgārjuna. When the Theravadins got engrossed with the Abhidhamma they forgot about it. The Mādhyamikas were alert enough to give it the attention it deserved.
...
“I didn’t quote from the Mahāyāna texts in the Nibbāna sermons,” he says, “because there was no need. All that was needed was already found in the Suttas. Teachers like Nāgārjuna brought to light what was already there 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” he laughs. “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. This has been rightly understood by Prof. Kalupahana.”

See also Ven Sujato's comments here:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ni ... ra/15674/9
Sujato wrote: Let’s look at what these passages say and don’t say. If there is one thing about Nagarjuna that we should bear in mind, it is that he was extremely subtle and precise in his phrasing, and deliberately worded his terse sayings to provoke a response. The key to grokking his method is to realize that he is engaging in a historical dialectic; specifically, critiquing the Abhidharma project.
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

From the Madhyamakaśāstra:
If someone is profoundly attached to the many dharmas, they attract views of existence; if intrinsic existence is broken, then relational existence; and if relational existence is broken, then existence; and if existence is broken, then nonexistence; and if nonexistence is broken, then bewilderment.
I think what Venerable Vimalākṣa outlines above is a common reaction to the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. A critic of Ven Nāgārjuna would likely say that he fails to dispel the bewilderment that he brings about.
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.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Critique of Nāgārjuna

Post by Coëmgenu »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:34 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:44 pm Denying the antecedent:

If X, then Y.
If not X, then not Y.

This is only true if you establish that "via X" is the only way that you can have a "Y." Otherwise, it's denying the antecedent. Do I have that correct?
Yes, that sounds right.
Does this relate to specific conditionality, as in DO?
I haven't read the section where is he accused of denying the antecedent yet, so I don't know what it is in reference to. I was also thinking of DO though.

I just came down with a rather nasty non-Covid cold, so maybe I'll have time to finish the second and first papers today while I'm not doing much of anything trying to recover for tomorrow.
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.
Post Reply