Path: kudonet.com!kudo20!tyagi From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (xiwangmu) Newsgroups: uk.religion.buddhist,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.religion.buddhism,talk.religion.buddhism Subject: Nagarjuna, Anatman/Svabhava and Reality (was something else) Date: 24 Mar 1997 17:56:24 -0800 Organization: KudoNet On-Line Services Lines: 114 Sender: tyagi@bjt.net Message-ID: References: <332404BD.7DEC@stirling.ac.uk.nospam> <19970311130400.IAA21821@ladder01.news.aol.com> <332564BF.6A6D@stirling.ac.uk.nospam> <333e05e9.21753777@news.idiscover.co.uk> Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (xiwangmu) NNTP-Posting-Host: kudo20.kudonet.com Xref: kudonet.com uk.religion.buddhist:1907 alt.magick.tyagi:8901 alt.zen:40882 alt.philosophy.zen:9781 talk.religion.buddhism:29194 49970324 AA1 Hail Mara! (I provide no references herein) "C.V.T.Richards" : >>If I understand correctly, Nagarjuna did not oppose to the notion that >>phenomena exist, but, rather that the self-nature (svabhava) of the >>phenomena, which we presume to be inherent in the phenomena, are merely a >>construction of our inability to see the true nature of >>the phenomena. The 'true' nature of a phenomenon is that it is empty of >>any self-nature.(Ref; Hopkins, 'Emptiness') this is correct. the issue revolves around the translation of the terms 'exist' and 'real' (similar problems congregate about the translation of the term 'sunyata' as 'empty'). >>Thus, phenomenon minus self-nature exist but are not considered real. precisely, 'reality' being defined as 'that which continuously and independently exists'. gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk (Guru George): >...I don't think this is quite correct. Phenomena *are* real >as Pratityasamutpada (that is their *true* mode of existence), as >dependently-arising phenomena (I would say in pretty much a >physicalistic interpretation, including linguistic convention - as >opposed to say an idealistic interpretation), that they are dependently-arising indicates their 'unreality' given the definition above, since that which is 'real' is permanent and eternal (all things being empty by Nagarjuna's rhetoric, even Nirvana). >and seeing this without the 'veil' of seeing them as >*intrinsically* real, is Nirvana. this is somewhat unclear to me. 'nirvana' literally relates to the extinguishment of a candle-flame and, within the 4 Noble Truths, constitutes the extinguishment of craving (tanha) by which the suffering of the Wheel of Rebirth continues. there is some degree of controversy amongst Buddhists as to whether or not Nirvana and Samsara are 'not two' in being empty (of own being, that is, sunyata), which Nagarjuna is said to have argued, or whether Nirvana can be said to be 'real'. after all, if there is no self (anatman) to 'see this', then 'veils to the self' may not truly be a helpful or accurate instruction. >>Since, according to Buddhism in general, the only state which is real is >>unconditioned and permanent Nirvana. If the svabhava is 'unreal' and >>nirvana is real, to what state should ascribe the remanant phenomena to? 'unconditioned and permanent Nirvana' is rather an extreme redundancy in some Buddhist language. phenomena is continuously changing, and therefore unreal in the sense that it has no 'own being', no separate, independent existence, even while there may be temporary, fluid change. >'Unconditioned' here refers to the state of mind, or perhaps you could >say 'existential' state, of the Buddhist: he or she is no longer >'driven' (like a puppet) to see everything as intrinsically real and >chase after that intrinsic reality. He or she is awake to the way >things really are - i.e. dependently arising (though you've got to be >careful here - 'really' does *not* mean 'intrinsically'). the terminology can at times get in the way, yes. >'Permanent' just means that once you've really *seen* through the >illusion (in the sense of actually inhabiting that perspective rather >than merely understanding it intellectually) you can't be 'hooked' >again. Needless to say, it isn't as easy to *live from within* such a >perspective as it is to understand it intellectually. there is also a problem with this in that it retains the notion that "you've really seen". there is a conundrum of 'you seeing that you are unreal', and this at times transcends linguistic descriptors. > ...that kind of 'cosmic' interpretation of >'unconditioned' and 'permanent' contradicts the strictures against >'eternalism', and becomes just another pseudo-Vedantistic teaching. I'm not sure what 'strictures' you are speaking about here, but it appears to me that Nagarjuna's instruction places not so much emphasis on strictures as on logic, using this against all manner of perspectives so as to demonstrate each one's limitation. in this manner his method functions as a kind of pseudo-Godelian delimiter, describing the very limitations of description, the outer reaches which philosophy and intellectual disputation may allow us to achieve. beyond this we begin to select among taste-sensations and conditioned particulars which will avail us little of the beatific awakening. >Much depends on >the translation you use, or the translator you trust. On the whole, >despite its faults, I trust Kalupahana's translation, from which I get >the bulk of my interpretation, mixed with a little bit of Tibetan >Gelukpa-style interpretation, mostly from R.A.F. Thurman's readings of >Tsongkhapa, and of course the vision of my own wisdom eye, such as it >is. :-) I reference no certain instructor, author or translator. instead I suggest that you research it yourself and, more importantly, compare this with your experience to take it beyond a merely rational enterprise, applying it in daily life. mu -- see http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html and call: 408/2-666-SLUG!!! ---- (emailed replies may be posted) ---- CC public replies to author ---- * * * Asphalta Cementia Metallica Polymera Coyote La Cucaracha Humana * * *