Nāgārjuna

Believers believe in buddhas
Who vanish in nirvana.
Don’t imagine empty buddhas
Vanishing or not.

-[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Nāgārjuna.​
​


s.
 
Snoopy said:
I thought I’d create a receptacle for all things Acharya Nāgārjuna. I don’t have anything specific to post at present, I just thought I’d start a thread for quotes, references, resources, book recommendations, comments, discussion…whatever…for “the second Buddha.”

Feel free…:).....

s.
Click to expand...

Nāgārjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the use of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness,


Nagarjuna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
This is a profound notion. We are always so focused on the material, here is the origin of the focus on the non-material.

which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anattā (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), to refute the metaphysics of Sarvastivāda and Sautrāntika (extinct non-Mahayana schools).
Click to expand...
The idea of "no-self" is very humbling, indeed.

For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally "own-being" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence;
Click to expand...
The idea of "self-nature" is very intriguing. It could mean that one needs to define their self through meditation and practice.

they are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.
Click to expand...
This idea could relate to the timelessness of the universe or its temporary nature.

Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true, commonly called upāya in later Mahāyāna writings.
Click to expand...
Early ideas of relativism came from here.

Nāgārjuna drew on an early version of this doctrine found in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms
Click to expand...
Bringing clarity is an important objective.
 
Having trouble understanding the inside joke with the two truths from the link in post #26. Here is a refrain:
  1. No thing anywhere is ever born from itself,
  2. from something else,
  3. from both
  4. or without a cause.
I suppose you think about each statement and try to comparitorate them, but do you first look at each of the four to confirm that it is true in some way? 1 and 2 partly are opposites, and 4 is the opposite of 3. I don't see how to compare 3 against 1 without 2 or in what way 1 should be related to 4.

Let us say that instead of 'Nothing' you substitute in the word 'Question'. "No question is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." That could be an entirely true statement with no conflict. But put in the word 'Pencil' and you get "No pencil is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." Now to make 1 or 2 false you must exclude the pencil from its own past, while to make 3 false you must include the past and assume 1 and 2 are true, and to make 4 true or false you simply do or do not care to have a pencil.

Finally if you put in 'Nothing' for 'Nothing' then you get 1. false, 2. false, 3. false and 4. false.
 
Dream said:
Having trouble understanding the inside joke with the two truths from the link in post #26. Here is a refrain:
  1. No thing anywhere is ever born from itself,
  2. from something else,
  3. from both
  4. or without a cause.
I suppose you think about each statement and try to comparitorate them, but do you first look at each of the four to confirm that it is true in some way? 1 and 2 partly are opposites, and 4 is the opposite of 3. I don't see how to compare 3 against 1 without 2 or in what way 1 should be related to 4.

Let us say that instead of 'Nothing' you substitute in the word 'Question'. "No question is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." That could be an entirely true statement with no conflict. But put in the word 'Pencil' and you get "No pencil is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." Now to make 1 or 2 false you must exclude the pencil from its own past, while to make 3 false you must include the past and assume 1 and 2 are true, and to make 4 true or false you simply do or do not care to have a pencil.

Finally if you put in 'Nothing' for 'Nothing' then you get 1. false, 2. false, 3. false and 4. false.
Click to expand...

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/buddhist-philosophy-719.html
 
Dream said:
Having trouble understanding the inside joke with the two truths from the link in post #26. Here is a refrain:
  1. No thing anywhere is ever born from itself,
  2. from something else,
  3. from both
  4. or without a cause.
I suppose you think about each statement and try to comparitorate them, but do you first look at each of the four to confirm that it is true in some way? 1 and 2 partly are opposites, and 4 is the opposite of 3. I don't see how to compare 3 against 1 without 2 or in what way 1 should be related to 4.

Let us say that instead of 'Nothing' you substitute in the word 'Question'. "No question is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." That could be an entirely true statement with no conflict. But put in the word 'Pencil' and you get "No pencil is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." Now to make 1 or 2 false you must exclude the pencil from its own past, while to make 3 false you must include the past and assume 1 and 2 are true, and to make 4 true or false you simply do or do not care to have a pencil.

Finally if you put in 'Nothing' for 'Nothing' then you get 1. false, 2. false, 3. false and 4. false.
Click to expand...

lol, try plugging "Truth" and "Falsehood" in there. :p

{I'm just starting on this treatise from Naagaarjuna myself, so we can be confused together.}
 
001
Now, in the presence of all the Buddhas,
With palms pressed together, I bow down my head in reverence.
I shall explain here in accordance with the teachings
The provisions essential for the bodhi of the Buddhas.
002
How would one be able to describe without omission
All of the provisions for the realization of bodhi?
This could only be accomplished by the Buddhas themselves,
For they, exclusively, have realized the boundless enlightenment.
003
The boundless qualities of a buddha’s body
Are rooted in the provisions essential to enlightenment.
Therefore the provisions for enlightenment
Themselves have no bounds.
004
I shall then explain but a lesser portion of them.
I render reverence to the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas.
It is all such bodhisattvas as these
To whom one should next make offerings, after the Buddhas.
005
Since it is the mother of the Bodhisattvas,
It is also the mother of the Buddhas:
The prajñāpāramitā
Is foremost among the provisions essential for enlightenment.
006
Because giving, moral virtue, patience, vigor, meditation,
And the others following from these five
All arise from the perfection of wisdom,
They are included within the pāramitās.
007
These six pāramitās
Encompass the provisions essential for bodhi,
They are comparable in this to empty space
Which entirely envelopes all things.
008
There is also the idea proposed by another master
That, as for the provisions for enlightenment,
Truth, relinquishment, cessation, and wisdom—
These four bases subsume them all.
009
The great compassion penetrates to the marrow of one’s bones.
Thus one serves as a refuge for every being.
With a feeling as strong as a father’s regard for his only son,
One’s kindness extends universally to all beings.

Guide to the Bodhisattva Path, Kalavinka Press
 
010
If one brings to mind the qualities of a buddha
Or hears of a buddha’s spiritual transformations,
One becomes purified through one’s admiration and joyfulness.
This is what is meant by the great sympathetic joy.
011
In his relations with beings, the bodhisattva
Should not allow himself to forsake them.
As befits the abilities determined by his powers,
He should always strive to draw them in.
012
From the very beginning, the bodhisattva
Should accord with the power of his abilities
And use skillful means to instruct beings,
Causing them to enter the Great Vehicle.
013
Even if one taught beings as numerous as the Ganges’ sands
So that they were caused to gain the fruit of arhatship,
Still, by instructing but a single person to enter the Great Vehicle,
One would generate merit superior to that.
014
Instructing through resort to the Śrāvaka Vehicle
Or through resort to the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle
Is undertaken where, on account of lesser abilities,
Beings are unable to accept instruction in the Great Vehicle.
015
Where even when relying on Śrāvaka or Pratyekabuddha Vehicles
In addition to the Great Vehicle teachings,
There are those who still cannot accept any such instruction,
One should strive to establish them in merit-creating situations.
016
If there be persons unable to accept
Instruction conducing either to the heavens or to liberation,
Favor them through bestowing present-life benefits.
Then, as befits one’s powers, one should draw them in.
017
Where, with regard to particular beings, a bodhisattva
Has no conditions through which to instruct them,
He should draw forth the great kindness and compassion
And should refrain from abandoning them.
018
Drawing them in through giving, through explaining Dharma,
Through listening to them discuss the Dharma,
Or through endeavors beneficial to them—
These are skillful means through which to attract them.
019
In that which is done for the benefit of beings,
Do not succumb to either weariness or negligence.
Bring forth vows for the sake of realizing bodhi.
Benefiting the world is just benefiting self.

Guide to the Bodhisattva Path
 
A favorite of mine is his advice for a King -- Ratnavali -- Chinese on facing pages;

http://kalavinka.org/ebooks_NEW/Strand of Jewels_Bilingual_ebk_08-19-23.pdf

Translators Introduction:
A Strand of [Dharma] Jewels as Advice for the King (Rāja-parikathā- ratnāvalī) is a 500-stanza treatise on Mahāyāna right view, practice, and realization written by Ārya Nāgārjuna sometime in the late first quarter of the first millennium ce. Although it is presented in the form of a letter to a monarch setting forth advice on how best to achieve happiness and gain liberation while also governing for the highest good of both king and country, its intent extends far beyond that: It is a reasonably complete guide for those aspiring to bodhisattva practice on how to understand the mind and the world, how to think and act in the world, and how to achieve the highest realization of mind in transcending the world, even while working all the while for universal good in the world.
 
Last edited:
Not even “non-existence” qualifies as nirvāṇa.
How much the less might “existence” qualify as such?
The complete end of attachments to existence or non-existence—
The Buddha described this as essential to nirvāṇa.

Ratnavali
 
From his Ten Grounds Treatise, pages 166-67, Kalavinka Press edition:

The nature of reality is not something that exists,
nor is it the case that it does not exist,
nor does it both exist and not exist,
nor does it neither exist nor not exist.

Nor does it abide in verbal expressions,
nor is it something apart from verbal expressions.
So it is that the meaning of ultimate reality
can never be expressed by resort to speech.

The speaker and the words that can be spoken—
—these are all characterized by quiescent cessation.
Whatsoever has the nature of quiescent cessation
is neither existent nor nonexistent.

No matter what one might wish to speak about
and no matter which means one might choose to speak,
how could there be someone who is wise and yet [still conceives]
of there being any “speaking” that takes place with some “speaker.”

If the nature of all dharmas is emptiness,
then dharmas are devoid of any [inherently existent] nature.
Consequently whatever dharmas are empty [of inherent existence],
those very dharmas are ineffable.

One cannot fail to have words that one speaks,
hence we borrow words to speak about emptiness.
The true meaning is neither empty
nor non-empty,

nor both empty and not empty,
nor neither empty nor not empty.
It is not false nor is it true,
nor is it spoken, nor is it not spoken.

And yet, in truth, there is nothing that exists,
and yet it is not the case that nothing exists at all.
This constitutes the complete relinquishment
of the discrimination of anything at all as existent.

Causes as well as whatever arises from causes—
All such dharmas as these
are in every case characterized by quiescent cessation.
There is neither any seizing on them nor any relinquishing of them.

Without ash-soap, a robe cannot be made clean,
But still, ashes may have the contrary effect of staining a robe.
[So too], were it not for words, one could not proclaim the truth.
Still, if one uses words and speech, that too may have its faults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top