Dharma Wheel - View Topic - Benefits of Nagarjuna - Dangers of Existence & Non-Existence

1/9/2558
DharmaWheelViewtopicBenefitsofNagarjuna/DangersofExistence&NonExistence
ABuddhistdiscussionforumonMahayanaandVajrayanaBuddhism
Search
Search
Advancedsearch
Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & Non

Existence
Forumrules
Postareply
Searchthistopic
Search
80postsPage1of41,2,3,4
Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

(#p55643)
byretrofuturistFriSep09,20115:47am
Greetings,
As I understand it, Nagarjuna criticised certain Buddhist thinkers/schools who he believed fell
into the trap of "existence" (roughly parallel to Western "Realism") or "nonexistence" (roughly
parallel to Western "Immaterialism"). I'm not sure what Sutras he referenced (that not really
being my domain), but in a Sutta/Agama sense, I understood he used suttas such as the
following as the basis for his arguments.
SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html)
SN 22.95: Phena Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Setting aside the doctrine and his actual critique for the moment, I'd like to ask the following
question...
What did Nagarjuna explain to be the dangers of (explicit or implicit) belief in Existence
and NonExistence?
Let's just assume for the moment that Nagarjuna was right... so what? What is the practical
implication to one's pursuit of the Buddhist path? How does belief in Existence or Non
Existence bring suffering or put roadblocks in the way of one's spiritual progress?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and for any references you may be able to share that
address this question.
Maitri,
Retro.
Top
Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

(#p55647)
byHuifengFriSep09,20117:04am
retrofuturist wrote:
Greetings,
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5249&p=55784#p55784
1/12
1/9/2558
As I understand it, Nagarjuna criticised certain Buddhist thinkers/schools who

he believed fell into the trap of "existence" (roughly parallel to Western
"Realism") or "nonexistence" (roughly parallel to Western "Immaterialism"). I'm
not sure what Sutras he referenced (that not really being my domain), but in a
Sutta/Agama sense, I understood he used suttas such as the following as the
basis for his arguments.
SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ...
.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html)
Setting aside the doctrine and his actual critique for the moment, I'd like to ask
the following question...
What did Nagarjuna explain to be the dangers of (explicit or implicit) belief in
Existence and NonExistence?
Let's just assume for the moment that Nagarjuna was right... so what? What is
the practical implication to one's pursuit of the Buddhist path? How does belief
in Existence or NonExistence bring suffering or put roadblocks in the way of
one's spiritual progress?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and for any references you may be able
to share that address this question.
Maitri,
Retro.
Hi Paul,
The Indic sense of existence as "sat" implies permanence, and thus is contrary to dependent
origination. ie. whatever is sat cannot be changed or developed. So, if mind were defiled, it
would always be defiled. Cultivation of the path would be useless. Likewise for nonexistence
as "asat", or also in the sense that considering there to be no further rebirth (a la
ucchedavada) there would again be no use in cultivating the path. Both views, sat and asat,
lead to views which totally reject any use in cultivating that path to release from samsara.
One can see these from the Katyayanavada and other sutras which have their equivalents in
SN 12, Nidanasamyutta. Though of course, it is highly unlikely that Nagarjuna referred to the
Pali. More likely those from other schools. You may also wish to check out a range of Agama
texts which were later called the "Mahasutras", such as the Mayajala, Mahasunyataparyaya,
Hastopadama, etc. which have similar themes and ideas, but do not appear in the Pali canon.
(See Skilling, Mahasutras.)
~~ Huifeng
Top

2/12
1/9/2558
(#p55651)
byAemiliusFriSep09,20118:22am
Greetings,
"Realism") or "nonexistence" (roughly parallel to Western "Immaterialism"). I'm
not sure what Sutras he referenced (that not really being my domain), but in a
Sutta/Agama sense, I understood he used suttas such as the following as the
basis for his arguments.
SN 12.15: Kaccayanagotta Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ...
.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html)
Setting aside the doctrine and his actual critique for the moment, I'd like to ask
the following question...
What did Nagarjuna explain to be the dangers of (explicit or implicit) belief in
Existence and NonExistence?
Let's just assume for the moment that Nagarjuna was right... so what? What is
the practical implication to one's pursuit of the Buddhist path? How does belief
in Existence or NonExistence bring suffering or put roadblocks in the way of
one's spiritual progress?
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and for any references you may be able
to share that address this question.
Maitri,
Retro.
It is like this: If matter exists essentially it means that matter has a self, and it precludes the
realisation of selflessness.
Besides Nagarjuna this said by Bhagavan Shakyamuni in the Pali suttas, ( sorry, can't
remember the name of the sutta, but in it the Bhagavan holds in his hand a clod of earth and
then speaks to the bhikshus).
kindly
Aemilius
Top

(#p55667)
byretrofuturistFriSep09,201112:35pm
Greetings,
3/12
1/9/2558
Thank you for the recommendations!

I shall investigate further.
(But keep the recommendations coming!)
Maitri,
Retro.
Top

(#p55671)
byMalcolmFriSep09,201112:58pm
How does belief in Existence or NonExistence bring suffering or put roadblocks
in the way of one's spiritual progress?
Not escaping higher realms because one engages in spiritual practice in the context of a real
self (existence); negating the effects of karma and therefore, falling into lower realms (non
existence).
It is really that simple.
N
Top

(#p55784)
bygroundSatSep10,20113:51am
Greetings,
"Realism") or "nonexistence" (roughly parallel to Western "Immaterialism").
I don't think that this is an appropriate phrasing. Actually he demonstrated the pitfalls of
language. It is all about language and attachment to the selfcreated mixture of vedana,
perceptions (incl. papanca) and volitional formations that may arise from its application.
Kind regards
Top
4/12
1/9/2558

(#p55786)
byVirgoSatSep10,20114:00am
TMingyur wrote:
Greetings,
As I understand it, Nagarjuna criticised certain Buddhist thinkers/schools
who he believed fell into the trap of "existence" (roughly parallel to
Western "Realism") or "nonexistence" (roughly parallel to Western
"Immaterialism").
I don't think that this is an appropriate phrasing. Actually he demonstrated the

pitfalls of language. It is all about language and attachment to the selfcreated
mixture of vedana, perceptions (incl. papanca) and volitional formations that
may arise from its application.
Kind regards
His criticisms of the pitfalls of language were about it's inability to perfectly express the
correct view, which is experiential. However, it's benefit is that it can definitely point to this
view. Through others people usage of language, he could recognize their pitfalls and point
them out, criticizing them.
Kevin
Top

(#p55831)
byel_chupacabraSatSep10,201111:05am
On the one hand we have Samsara, the relative world of phenomenainflux. Take for
example a dictionary where every word is defined in terms of every other word there is no
anchoring point to stop an infinite regress, no metaword which would pin all the others in
place.
On the other hand we have the absolute, the independent thinginitself about which no
relative comparison may be made and about which nothing may be said.
Nagarjuna realised that at some point these two sets must intersect, and so the empty
(absolute) set must also be an element in the relative set, providing it with an anchoring
point to stop infinite regress into relativity, but which also initself must remain empty in
order for it to serve this function.
His dialectic moves through four stages;
The emptiness of all things (that all things have no inherent existence)
The identity of dependent origination with emptiness
The indifferentiability of nirvana from samsara
5/12
1/9/2558
The tentative or merely conventional nature of all truth

Basically, when we say that Samsara is like a magical illusion, we are tempted to enquire
about what is the "truth" behind such an illusion. Nagarjuna's dialectic suggests that the only
certainty is that the illusion is an illlusion.
To explain it differently, when we say "presence" and "absence", in language they have the
relationship of +1 to 1, whereas in actuality they have the relationship of +1 to 0
The same goes for light and dark, where in language we treat them as opposites when in fact
darkness is merely the absence of light, so we can see how the word and the concept are
inadequate representations of emptiness. (Interestingly, on a mathematical graph, zero and
infinity behave as if they are identical).
Top

(#p57242)
byNirvedaMonSep19,20115:26am
Retro,
I found this book The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental
Wisdom of the Middle Way by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso to be indispensible in helping me
understand Nagarjuna:
http://www.amazon.com/SunWisdomTeachingsNagarjunasFundamental/dp/1570629994
(http://www.amazon.com/SunWisdomTeachingsNagarjunasFundamental/dp/1570629994)
Best regards
Nirveda/Nibbida
Top

(#p57277)
byAndrew108MonSep19,20113:53pm
Yes that book is brilliant.

Top

(#p57279)
byNicholasWeeksMonSep19,20114:03pm
In Nagarjuna's Ratnavali, ch. 1, vv 378 (Kalavinka trans.):
37
It does not exist having arisen from itself, from some other, or both, and also
does not exist in any of the three periods of time,
once this is realized, the view imputing a self ceases, along with subsequent
karmic actions and retributions.
38
Having perceived causeandeffect in this manner, its arising, and its complete
6/12
1/9/2558
cessation, one therefore refrains from seizing upon there being any reality to
the worlds existence or its nonexistence.
"Seizing upon" is the key; believing in existence or nonexistence requires attachment.

Knowing that neither is true frees one and promotes nonattachment or renunciation.
LasteditedbyNicholasWeeks(./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=61)onTue
Sep20,20116:00pm,edited2timesintotal.
Top

(#p57337)
byswampflowerTueSep20,20113:29am
Further there is the pitfall that if one believes only in this physical world, the Realism, then
one may say that there is no reason not to take whatever one wishes at any cost since there
is only this "now" and there is the wish to live with the most wealth and pleasures possible no
matter how much this may harm others.
The nihilistic view of "no thing" may also lead to extremes of thinking that there is no value to
anything, no purpose or reason to do good deeds here either.
The Middle Way chooses the path between these extremes leading to an understanding of the
interrelationships and dependencies between all beings. From this understanding arises true
compassion.
Nagarjuna is a most precious teacher!
Top

(#p57338)
bygroundTueSep20,20114:13am
swampflower wrote:
No. The Buddha is, i.e. was.
Kind regards
Top

(#p57339)
byJosefTueSep20,20115:38am
TMingyur wrote:
7/12
1/9/2558
swampflower wrote:
Kind regards
Swampflower said "a" precious teacher, not "the" or "only".

They both were.
Top

(#p57366)
byEpistemesTueSep20,20112:37pm
Will wrote:
In Nagarjuna's Ratnavali, ch. 1, vv 378 (Kalavinka trans.):
37
It does not exist having arisen from itself, from some other, or both, And
also does not exist in any of the three periods of time,
Once this is realized, the view imputing a self ceases, along with
subsequent karmic actions and retributions.
38
Having perceived causeandeffect in this manner, Its arising, and its
complete cessation, one therefore refrains from seizing upon there
being any reality To the worlds existence or its nonexistence.
"Seizing upon" is the key; believing in existence or nonexistence requires

attachment. Knowing that neither is true frees one and promotes non
attachment or renunciation.
Virgo wrote:
His criticisms of the pitfalls of language were about it's inability to perfectly
express the correct view, which is experiential. However, it's benefit is that it
can definitely point to this view. Through others people usage of language, he
could recognize their pitfalls and point them out, criticizing them.
I'm going to sound really stupid, but I'm here to learn, so:
When Nagarjuna says that there is no existence, is he claiming that the Earth, universe, and
multiverses do not exist in the sense that they cannot be sensually experienced? Or, is he, in
8/12
1/9/2558
a spirit of recognizing the universality of prattyasamutpda and snyat, saying that the
Earth, universe, and multiverses do not intrinsically exist as such?
Furthermore, is Nagarjuna claiming the seed of a thing does not intrinsically exist either in
itself or through another thing? By this I mean, we cannot find any trace of an iPod in
sunlight. This is because sunlight does not instrinsically exist, right, and not because we are
not currently able to handle an iPod which, through prattyasamutpda, has been
manifested?
Lastly, to say that the Earth, universe, multiverses, sunlight and iPods do not exist is equally
a misnomer due to the nature of their apparent manifestation?
I apologize for disrupting this thread with such basic questions as these.
Top

(#p57368)
byMalcolmTueSep20,20112:55pm
Epistemes wrote:
I'm going to sound really stupid, but I'm here to learn, so:
When Nagarjuna says that there is no existence, is he claiming that the Earth,
universe, and multiverses do not exist in the sense that they cannot be
sensually experienced? Or, is he, in a spirit of recognizing the universality of
prattyasamutpda and snyat, saying that the Earth, universe, and multi
verses do not intrinsically exist as such?
For Ngrjuna, stating that things exist is a statement that they inherently exist.
Therefore, the only existence that Ngrjuna was willing to grant phenomena was what we
term a relative or nominal existence. Thus he is saying "...that the Earth, universe, and
multiverses do not intrinsically exist as such" "in a spirit of recognizing the universality of
prattyasamutpda and snyat".
N
Top

(#p57403)
byel_chupacabraTueSep20,20115:35pm
Epistemes wrote:
When Nagarjuna says that there is no existence, is he claiming that the Earth,
universe, and multiverses do not exist in the sense that they cannot be
sensually experienced? Or, is he, in a spirit of recognizing the universality of
prattyasamutpda and snyat, saying that the Earth, universe, and multi
verses do not intrinsically exist as such?
9/12
1/9/2558
Sense perception is equally subject to causality. The eye that sees is an object in the world,
and what is perceived is dependent upon that eye (and brain which interprets the sense
perception). We tend to think of red as being a property of the thing, but in fact it is
dependent upon a number of things, (spectral light, that light bouncing off the object and
entering the eye, the eye itself, and the interpretation of this sensory input by the brain...
etc.) all of which are themselves dependent on something else.
What colour is red in total darkness? We tend to think that it would still be red if only we had
some light, but then what if that light was itself coloured? we tend to take our "normal"
perceptions as some sort of baseline truth when in fact all the elements are contingent and
dependently related to each other if our eyes were built differently then our colour
perception would also vary so where then is the baseline truth? Any perception or attempt
to measure is itself part of the chain of dependent interrelations. (So we have a process of
standardisation for measurement we all accept what an inch is even though its an arbitrary
measurement)
Epistemes wrote:
Furthermore, is Nagarjuna claiming the seed of a thing does not intrinsically
exist either in itself or through another thing? By this I mean, we cannot find
any trace of an iPod in sunlight. This is because sunlight does not instrinsically
exist, right, and not because we are not currently able to handle an iPod
which, through prattyasamutpda, has been manifested?
Lastly, to say that the Earth, universe, multiverses, sunlight and iPods do not
exist is equally a misnomer due to the nature of their apparent manifestation?
Say for example the iPod was crushed into dust, it would no longer be an iPod, but it would
not simply cease to be. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can neither go out of
existence nor have come into existence out of nothing. Science has tended to say that the
smallest part of matter is the molecule, but quantum theory seems to be catching up with
Buddhist ideas which state that there is no smallest unit of matter there is nothing, no
matter how small that we can't imagine removing a tiny sliver of an making it smaller.
So we have a notion of everything in flux and in a dependent relationship the iPod was once
made of other stuff, and can return to a state of "stuffness", but if we try to discover what
the smallest part of that stuff is, we find no baseline of truth.
That would suggest then that everything is totally relative, but one thing rescues it from that
because without mind it would not be possible to perceive anything at all, the question then
becomes how is it then possible to know mind itself when at no point can we step outside?
Mind itself is subject to this same emptiness, but this is not to say that emptiness is
another view of reality, it is the very ground itself. If we take mind as an object for
consciousness then we distort it by conceptualisation emptiness cannot be adequately
conceived and must be experienced to be known.
(I should probably put a disclaimer that this is my current (limited) understanding and that I
am painting with very broad brushstrokes here)
10/12
1/9/2558
Top

(#p57444)
bygroundTueSep20,20118:37pm
Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
swampflower wrote:
Kind regards
Swampflower said "a" precious teacher, not "the" or "only".

They both were.
That depends. If you come from a wrong path and Nagarjuna helps you to let go of wrong
tenets to find your way to the Buddha's teachings then Nagarjuna is in fact a precious one.
If however you get distracted by Nagarjuna and follow a wrong path then he is a false
teacher.
Why is this? Because the Buddha is the only precious one.
Kind regards
Top

(#p57461)
byswampflowerWedSep21,201112:12am
"That depends. If you come from a wrong path and Nagarjuna helps you to let go of wrong
tenets to find your way to the Buddha's teachings then Nagarjuna is in fact a precious one.
If however you get distracted by Nagarjuna and follow a wrong path then he is a false
teacher.
Why is this? Because the Buddha is the only precious one."
With all due respects I am on the Noble Eightfold Path of the Buddha. And I do hold
Nagarjuna's teachings to be precious Buddhist teachings. And Nagarjuna as a precious
teacher. There is no wrong path here to find. I humbly submit that I have a deep
understanding of Nagarjuna's teachings. I suggest perhaps further study of Nagarjuna would
benefit these discussions and with less "opinion".
If one views Buddhist teachings with ignorance that does not make the teachings false.
11/12
1/9/2558
Top

(#p57526)
byKarmaDondrupTashiWedSep21,20114:14pm
TMingyur wrote:
If however you get distracted by Nagarjuna ...
It's possible to get distracted by anything including Buddha.

Top
NextDisplaypostsfromprevious: Allposts
Sortby Posttime
Ascending
Go
Postareply
80postsPage1of41,2,3,4
ReturntoMahynaBuddhism
Jumpto: MahynaBuddhism
Go
Who is online
Usersbrowsingthisforum:Noregisteredusersand12guests
2015DavidN.Snyder,Ph.D.,VipassanaFoundationinassociationwithTheDhammaEncyclopedia
DharmaWheelisassociatedwithDhammaWheel.com,DhammaWiki.com,andTheDhamma.com..
Chatroom
>
12/12

Dharma Wheel - View Topic - Benefits of Nagarjuna - Dangers of Existence & Non-Existence

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dharma Wheel - View Topic - Benefits of Nagarjuna - Dangers of Existence & Non-Existence

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1/9/2558

Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & Non

Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

SN 22.95: Phena Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

As I understand it, Nagarjuna criticised certain Buddhist thinkers/schools who

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Thank you for the recommendations!

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

I don't think that this is an appropriate phrasing. Actually he demonstrated the

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

The tentative or merely conventional nature of all truth

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Yes that book is brilliant.

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

In Nagarjuna's Ratnavali, ch. 1, vv 378 (Kalavinka trans.):

"Seizing upon" is the key; believing in existence or nonexistence requires attachment.

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

No. The Buddha is, i.e. was.

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

No. The Buddha is, i.e. was.

Swampflower said "a" precious teacher, not "the" or "only".

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

"Seizing upon" is the key; believing in existence or nonexistence requires

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

No. The Buddha is, i.e. was.

Swampflower said "a" precious teacher, not "the" or "only".

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

Re: Benefits of Nagarjuna / Dangers of Existence & NonExistence

It's possible to get distracted by anything including Buddha.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen