Question about Nagarjuna's Heart of Dependent Origination

[ThreeVows]

Link Here : http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-mast ... rigination

In verse 6, he says,

"Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising."

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.

[takso]

Link Here : http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-mast ... rigination

In verse 6, he says,

"Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising."

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.

It's referring to emptiness. Emptiness is regarded as extremely subtle entities. For someone, emptiness is regarded as nihilism. Coupled with lacking precise and thorough knowledge, the blinded ones will not see the actuality of conditioned arising.

[Bristollad]

I haven't received teachings on this text, but it seems to me that extremely subtle entities is referring to the directionally partless particles of the Abhidharma. There are other translations of this text which seem quite different, e.g. by Peter Della Santina,

VI. Those who impute origination even in regard to very subtle
entities, being unwise, have not seen the meaning of conditioned
origination.

but which translation is more accurate I couldn't say. Have a look here for Della Santina's translation of these 7 verses along with a translation of the auto-commentary, p.58 - 64:

https://dharmanet.org/DellaNagarjuna.pdf

[Wayfarer]

No, not ‘emptiness’. Emptiness is not any kind of entity whatever.

Recall the saying you find all throughout ancient teachings of ‘the triple world’. That is the desire realm, form realm and formless realm. I think it’s a reference to those subtle realms which are inconceivable to the mind which only thinks in terms of the gross realm of desire or the ‘desire realm’. Such a mind cannot fathom other, very subtle modes of reality so it ‘regards them with nihilism’ i.e. says that they are non-existent, when in fact their existence is ‘subtle’.

[takso]

Another definition for the extremely subtle entities is energy. Energy is a quality that is universal i.e. it is inherent existing and dependent arising concurrently. And the alternate expression for energy is emptiness.

When one sees into energy, one sees into emptiness; when one sees into emptiness, one sees into energy.

This is the rationale for the saying, ‘Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.’ The principle in effect: seeing into form is seeing into matter, seeing into matter is seeing into energy and seeing into energy is seeing into emptiness. And emptiness is a necessary prerequisite for any objects to exist; without it, the object would be impossible.

Energy is described as the ability to cause change or do work, while emptiness is understood as absence in the static entity and devoid of inherent existence for all created objects or things.

[Astus]

What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Entities is a general term here (vastu / 事), so it can be taken to refer to the aggregates, to name and form, to the basic constituents of a being. The first half of the sixth stanza is the continuation of the second half of the fifth discussing causal relation between lives, where there is nothing transferred nor anything annihilated.

[Caoimhghín]

What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Entities is a general term here (vastu / 事), so it can be taken to refer to the aggregates, to name and form, to the basic constituents of a being. The first half of the sixth stanza is the continuation of the second half of the fifth discussing causal relation between lives, where there is nothing transferred nor anything annihilated.

Does the Chinese text have Ven Nāgārjuna, in the terminology of the translation, relate 事 to 理? Do you know where the text is in the Taishō Canon?

[zerwe]

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this stanza points to the following--
If one refutes the aggregates, if one refutes their conventional existence, thus perceiving them as non-existent--this is nihilism,
then you will be unable to see Nagarjuna's final intention that emptiness and dependent arising are co-dependent and non-contradictory.

Shaun

[TrimePema]

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this stanza points to the following--
If one refutes the aggregates, if one refutes their conventional existence, thus perceiving them as non-existent--this is nihilism,
then you will be unable to see Nagarjuna's final intention that emptiness and dependent arising are co-dependent and non-contradictory.

Shaun

Maybe the 4th stanza describes the valid way to see them? Is that nominal existence/designation?

[zerwe]

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this stanza points to the following--
If one refutes the aggregates, if one refutes their conventional existence, thus perceiving them as non-existent--this is nihilism,
then you will be unable to see Nagarjuna's final intention that emptiness and dependent arising are co-dependent and non-contradictory.

Shaun

Maybe the 4th stanza describes the valid way to see them? Is that nominal existence/designation?

Yes, I believe that is correct. However, I am not sure that the 4th stanza is necessarily explicit in the sense that it says
that they exist as a "mere designation," "merely labeled by mind," or "in mere name", etc...Those were likely added as the Madhyamika interpretation, debate and vocabulary continued to develop.

Shaun

[Malcolm]

I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that this stanza points to the following--
If one refutes the aggregates, if one refutes their conventional existence, thus perceiving them as non-existent--this is nihilism,
then you will be unable to see Nagarjuna's final intention that emptiness and dependent arising are co-dependent and non-contradictory.

Shaun

Maybe the 4th stanza describes the valid way to see them? Is that nominal existence/designation?

Yes, I believe that is correct. However, I am not sure that the 4th stanza is necessarily explicit in the sense that it says
that they exist as a "mere designation," "merely labeled by mind," or "in mere name", etc...Those were likely added as the Madhyamika interpretation, debate and vocabulary continued to develop.

Shaun

No, “dependent designation” is a found in the MMK with respect to dependent origination.

[zerwe]

Maybe the 4th stanza describes the valid way to see them? Is that nominal existence/designation?

Yes, I believe that is correct. However, I am not sure that the 4th stanza is necessarily explicit in the sense that it says
that they exist as a "mere designation," "merely labeled by mind," or "in mere name", etc...Those were likely added as the Madhyamika interpretation, debate and vocabulary continued to develop.

Shaun

No, “dependent designation” is a found in the MMK with respect to dependent origination.

Thanks, Malcom. I knew at some point there would be something I was missing.

Shaun

[Caoimhghín]

No, not ‘emptiness’. Emptiness is not any kind of entity whatever.

Recall the saying you find all throughout ancient teachings of ‘the triple world’. That is the desire realm, form realm and formless realm. I think it’s a reference to those subtle realms which are inconceivable to the mind which only thinks in terms of the gross realm of desire or the ‘desire realm’. Such a mind cannot fathom other, very subtle modes of reality so it ‘regards them with nihilism’ i.e. says that they are non-existent, when in fact their existence is ‘subtle’.

I depends. It is an entity, or a body, in the context of entity-function (体用), the Japanese interpretative equivalent of Chinese essence-function (體用). But this entity, 体, is not the same entity that our friend Astus referred to, 事.

事用 is, incidentally, another form of essence-function (I think), but I am not sure from where/whence.

Context: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27623&p=431813&hil ... ty#p431796
Also: viewtopic.php?f=41&p=475862#p471721

[Malcolm]

Link Here : http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-mast ... rigination

In verse 6, he says,

"Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising."

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.

The extremely subtle existents are particles, paramanus.


A more precise translation would be:

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing transfers.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’.

The auto commentary states with respect to this:

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

The purpose of this is to point out that even though nothing transfers from this life to the next, the assertion that even a subtle particle is annihilated is false. Why? Because in Madhyamaka causes and effects are neither the same nor different.

[ThreeVows]

Link Here : http://www.lotsawahouse.org/indian-mast ... rigination

In verse 6, he says,

"Then, as for extremely subtle entities,
Those who regard them with nihilism,
Lacking precise and thorough knowledge,
Will not see the actuality of conditioned arising."

Can anyone explain this a bit? What is being referred to as extremely subtle entities that may be regarded with nihilism, lacking precise and thorough knowledge?

Thank you for input.

The extremely subtle existents are particles, paramanus.


A more precise translation would be:

Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing transfers.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’.

The auto commentary states with respect to this:

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

The purpose of this is to point out that even though nothing transfers from this life to the next, the assertion that even a subtle particle is annihilated is false. Why? Because in Madhyamaka causes and effects are neither the same nor different.

Thank you.

Do you happen to have a full translation a la the verse you quoted here, or know where to find it?

Thanks.

[Wayfarer]

The extremely subtle existents are particles, paramanus.

However, am I correct in believing that in Buddhism, 'particles' are of a momentary nature, i.e. rapidly arising and passing away - unlike atoms they're not of endless (or at least very great) duration?

[Wayfarer]

I depends. It [sunyata] is an entity, or a body, in the context of entity-function (体用), the Japanese interpretative equivalent of Chinese essence-function (體用). But this entity, 体, is not the same entity that our friend Astus referred to, 事.

事用 is, incidentally, another form of essence-function (I think), but I am not sure from where/whence.

Context: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27623&p=431813&hil ... ty#p431796
Also: viewtopic.php?f=41&p=475862#p471721

But I didn't think sunyata is ever understood or depicted as an entity or a body, surely?

[Astus]

Does the Chinese text have Ven Nāgārjuna, in the terminology of the translation, relate 事 to 理?

No. That is most likely a Chinese innovation.

Do you know where the text is in the Taishō Canon?

十二因緣論
因緣心論頌因緣心論釋

[Sherab]

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle particle of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.

The purpose of this is to point out that even though nothing transfers from this life to the next, the assertion that even a subtle particle is annihilated is false. Why? Because in Madhyamaka causes and effects are neither the same nor different.

Off topic: It should be possible to argue in at least two ways (one more satisfactory than the other) that the parts in red are linked. (Teaser )