Is Nagajuna just fiction

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:49 pm

someone said that some believe Nagajuna to be a Buddha...

isn't a known fact that he is but a vehicle for an author to use in order to give a teaching...

i mean really now a 900 year old king of the snake people..little mermaid people....do they really exist?

My Irish Grandmother used to say "ah it's the work of little people" when things went missing...

i don't think she believed in leprechauns...or faeries ....but who knows...she might have...she believed in Catholicism...lol :tongue:

i recall Namdrol on esangha once said a lot of stuff is done in the name of the Buddha is similar to all the Hindu teachings done in the name of Krisna...they do that to give it weight is what i surmised from that post in a galaxy a far far far away now...

and this is all from Kumarajiva...the great writer of the lotus sutra and he had some fixation with mermaids in that one too....the lotus sutra was kept by mermaids....till :quoteunquote: we :quoteunquote: were ready


from wikipedia
According to a biography translated by Kumārajīva


i think Kumarajiva wrote stuff and said it was a translation...yes// no....
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Josef » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:09 pm

Nagarjuna was a Buddhist monk who lived for less than 100 years, not a snake-people king who lived for 900 years.
We can be comfortable with him having lived since there are actual lineages and institutions that stem from him and his writings.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:23 pm

Nangwa wrote:Nagarjuna was a Buddhist monk who lived for less than 100 years, not a snake-people king who lived for 900 years.
We can be comfortable with him having lived since there are actual lineages and institutions that stem from him and his writings.


do we have his writings or translations of such that are suppossed to be from his writings...do we have his hand writing...

if we do i'm happier for it :woohoo:
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby ground » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:25 pm

Rael wrote:someone said that some believe Nagajuna to be a Buddha...


It is very popular in Mahayana buddhism to call someone a "buddha" if he impressed or impresses with teachings. This of course is an expression of faith which is a conducive quality.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Josef » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:28 pm

Rael wrote:
Nangwa wrote:Nagarjuna was a Buddhist monk who lived for less than 100 years, not a snake-people king who lived for 900 years.
We can be comfortable with him having lived since there are actual lineages and institutions that stem from him and his writings.


do we have his writings or translations of such that are suppossed to be from his writings...do we have his hand writing...

if we do i'm happier for it :woohoo:

As far as I know we dont have actual archeological samples of his handwriting. It would be really cool if we did, but he was most likely writing on leaves or some other material that doesnt stand the test of time well.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:37 pm

Nangwa wrote:
Rael wrote:
Nangwa wrote:Nagarjuna was a Buddhist monk who lived for less than 100 years, not a snake-people king who lived for 900 years.
We can be comfortable with him having lived since there are actual lineages and institutions that stem from him and his writings.


do we have his writings or translations of such that are suppossed to be from his writings...do we have his hand writing...

if we do i'm happier for it :woohoo:

As far as I know we dont have actual archeological samples of his handwriting. It would be really cool if we did, but he was most likely writing on leaves or some other material that doesnt stand the test of time well.

ok so no historical evidence either than translations done in his name...

and the name is supposed to mean king of the nagas...which are snake like little people...or mermaids...

kumarajiva's translation is prolly the earliest known works....yes///no
which is also the earliest Lotus Sutra we have....

i think...i dunno...I'm asking...

i would be very happy if Nagas were real...
as well as faeries and leprechauns....not sarcasm....i love this stuff...

one time in the 80's this chick i was trying to get into told me at a first meeting when asked where she was from...she said Jupiter implying outer space....and i so wanted it to be true i said quite sincerely "Really?"....she laughed and realized i was hoping.....i scored large....which should tell you if you are similar circumstance ...go for the innocent you want her to be an alien out of hope approach.... :woohoo:
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Josef » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:41 pm

You should try to remember to take your medicine more often.
There is an entire monastic institution that was founded by his direct students. Pretty solid evidence that there was an actual guy around at some time who wrote this stuff down.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:01 pm

ok thanks for this :thanks: ...i was somehow led astray :tantrum: by something Namdrol posted both here and at the other place.... :oops:
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:01 pm

well at least thats all cleared up :applause:
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Josef » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:02 pm

Rael wrote:ok thanks for this :thanks: ...i was somehow led astray :tantrum: by something Namdrol posted both here and at the other place.... :oops:

The history of Nalanda monastery in India is really fascinating.
Also, Nagarjuna's main student, Aryadeva has some really great writings out there as well.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Malcolm » Mon Apr 11, 2011 10:34 pm

Rael wrote:ok thanks for this :thanks: ...i was somehow led astray :tantrum: by something Namdrol posted both here and at the other place.... :oops:



I don't think you can blame me for leading you astray.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:28 am

Namdrol wrote:
Rael wrote:ok thanks for this :thanks: ...i was somehow led astray :tantrum: by something Namdrol posted both here and at the other place.... :oops:



I don't think you can blame me for leading you astray.


no worries....sorry that came off horrid in type....

what are your thoughts on the matter....

and what you think of that line i came up with...Buddhism is an ongoing teacher....

meaning we constantly are being taught...and inspired to teach...

i know i sound harsh on you ....i prolly would like you a lot in real life....

i'm aware of certain things is all....
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby plwk » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:31 am

Many myths are based on truth - Spock
plwk
 
Posts: 2456
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby muni » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:53 am

Rael wrote:someone said that some believe Nagajuna to be a Buddha...

....


A master simple doesn't appear as a Buddha. Whether one sees a Buddha is dependent on own percieving. I mean, our master can appear as a fully realised one, an awakened one, still others see an ordinary one who can need a good lesson.

When a teaching or master is not providing us clarity, stimulation, inspiration and so on; we can leave it or we get entangled in own fabricated spiderweb of likes and dislikes.

How not to be a slave of our (identification) fictitious conceptualisations and their created suffering world; an offered teaching by Nagarjuna.
muni
 
Posts: 2734
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Malcolm » Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:01 pm

Rael wrote:
i recall Namdrol on esangha once said a lot of stuff is done in the name of the Buddha is similar to all the Hindu teachings done in the name of Krisna...they do that to give it weight is what i surmised from that post in a galaxy a far far far away now...



There are a group of texts that all are clearly authored by one person. These texts all cover various topics related to, but not necessarily covered in detail in the Mulamadhyamaka Karikas. The person to whom authorship of this group of texts is attributed is one Nāgārjuna.

Nāgārjuna is mentioned by name as being from South India in the Lanka-avatara sūtra. Traditionally, this was held to be a prediction of Nāgārjuna by the Buddha -- western scholars of course tend to think this dates the Lanka's composition after the second century CE.

There a many many texts attributed to Nāgārjuna. It is likely that there were several Nāgārjunas, at least three, not to mention texts authored under his name.

But the collection of texts I mentioned above, the so-called collection of reasoning, as well as three or four praises he wrote, and the Ratnavali and Suhrleka are all certainly by one and the same author, and that person we call Nāgārjuna. His direct disciple, Aryadeva, wrote a supplement to the Mulamadhyamaka Karikas, called 400 Verses, as well as a couple of other minor pieces. These two authors works mentioned above form the core of the so called "Father and Son" Madhyamaka. These texts form the real core of Madhyamaka teachings.

Unfortunately, today most people read Nagarjuna through the lens of the four Tibetan schools, rather than reading Indian Madhyamaka authors themselves.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10154
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:15 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Rael wrote:
i recall Namdrol on esangha once said a lot of stuff is done in the name of the Buddha is similar to all the Hindu teachings done in the name of Krisna...they do that to give it weight is what i surmised from that post in a galaxy a far far far away now...



There are a group of texts that all are clearly authored by one person. These texts all cover various topics related to, but not necessarily covered in detail in the Mulamadhyamaka Karikas. The person to whom authorship of this group of texts is attributed is one Nāgārjuna.

Nāgārjuna is mentioned by name as being from South India in the Lanka-avatara sūtra. Traditionally, this was held to be a prediction of Nāgārjuna by the Buddha -- western scholars of course tend to think this dates the Lanka's composition after the second century CE.

There a many many texts attributed to Nāgārjuna. It is likely that there were several Nāgārjunas, at least three, not to mention texts authored under his name.

But the collection of texts I mentioned above, the so-called collection of reasoning, as well as three or four praises he wrote, and the Ratnavali and Suhrleka are all certainly by one and the same author, and that person we call Nāgārjuna. His direct disciple, Aryadeva, wrote a supplement to the Mulamadhyamaka Karikas, called 400 Verses, as well as a couple of other minor pieces. These two authors works mentioned above form the core of the so called "Father and Son" Madhyamaka. These texts form the real core of Madhyamaka teachings.

Unfortunately, today most people read Nagarjuna through the lens of the four Tibetan schools, rather than reading Indian Madhyamaka authors themselves.

N

Man!!! i want to thank you for that

when i read you in esangha you just sort of glommed on about it in some post....not mentioning Lord Nagarjuna....
sort of a discourse with some member you were trying to make a point to......

now ,at the time i was just learning about the fact the Lotus sutra was written way after our Lord's parinirvana and well...my radar was up.....

oddly enough though you helped me unfear myself that something might not be as kosher as some would like us to be....


but my mistake was painting everything with that brush.....as this thread is a testament to......


i know that i am taken care of for in my fog i always get to know the truth...it's amazing how many times...and the years in between where i'm convinced of one thing only to learn it is actually another....

my highest honor i can bestow on someone Namdrol is thus.....

"Your Alright"

thank ye kindly....

you've done me a great service....and i don't regret the brush painting either...i do that shit and it always gets straightened out...though what was it....four years ago you wrote that sentence.....lol.....
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Anders » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:35 pm

Rael wrote:and this is all from Kumarajiva...the great writer of the lotus sutra and he had some fixation with mermaids in that one too....the lotus sutra was kept by mermaids....till :quoteunquote: we :quoteunquote: were ready


from wikipedia
According to a biography translated by Kumārajīva


i think Kumarajiva wrote stuff and said it was a translation...yes// no....


Dude, where do you get this stuff from?

Namdrol has already cleared up the Nagarjuna thing, but Kumarajiva obviously did not compose the Lotus Sutra. It circulated in India both before and after he came to China and translated it. Furthermore, there are earlier Chinese translations than Kumarajiva's.

The only work Kumarajiva has been suspected of 'doctoring' is Nagarjunas commentary on the perfection of wisdom. And that was only really because Kumarajiva is the only known other candidate with the intellect, knowledge and insight capable of writing such a work. Textual analysis would rule him out however and probably make Nagarjuna himself a more likely author.

Please, think twice the next time before making stuff up about monks of repute.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Anders
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: Is Nagajuna just fiction

Postby Rael » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:37 pm

Anders Honore wrote:
Rael wrote:and this is all from Kumarajiva...the great writer of the lotus sutra and he had some fixation with mermaids in that one too....the lotus sutra was kept by mermaids....till :quoteunquote: we :quoteunquote: were ready


from wikipedia
According to a biography translated by Kumārajīva


i think Kumarajiva wrote stuff and said it was a translation...yes// no....


Dude, where do you get this stuff from?

Namdrol has already cleared up the Nagarjuna thing, but Kumarajiva obviously did not compose the Lotus Sutra. It circulated in India both before and after he came to China and translated it. Furthermore, there are earlier Chinese translations than Kumarajiva's.

The only work Kumarajiva has been suspected of 'doctoring' is Nagarjunas commentary on the perfection of wisdom. And that was only really because Kumarajiva is the only known other candidate with the intellect, knowledge and insight capable of writing such a work. Textual analysis would rule him out however and probably make Nagarjuna himself a more likely author.

Please, think twice the next time before making stuff up about monks of repute.


itsa process.... a people thang...
:group:
Love Love Love
User avatar
Rael
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm


Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dude, Finney and 20 guests

>