Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Miorita
Posts: 1069
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:37 pm
Location: US

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Miorita »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:40 am
Miorita wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:53 pm
On a relative level, the Sun is a permanent object/being who shines.
There are no permanent objects on the relative level, the sun included.
Lavoisier does not agree with you.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Aemilius »

There are also White holes. White holes radiate objects, which thus seem to appear from nothing. There are even some observations that seem to indicate the existence of white holes. Naturally there is now probably one hundred videos about White holes in the Youtube. About two years ago there was one video in this topic.

"In general relativity, a white hole is a hypothetical region of spacetime and singularity that cannot be entered from the outside, although energy-matter, light and information can escape from it. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can be entered only from the outside and from which energy-matter, light and information cannot escape. White holes appear in the theory of eternal black holes. In addition to a black hole region in the future, such a solution of the Einstein field equations has a white hole region in its past. This region does not exist for black holes that have formed through gravitational collapse, however, nor are there any observed physical processes through which a white hole could be formed.

"The black hole/white hole appears "eternal" from the perspective of an outside observer, in the sense that particles traveling outward from the white hole interior region can pass the observer at any time, and particles traveling inward, which will eventually reach the black hole interior region can also pass the observer at any time.

"Just as there are two separate interior regions of the maximally extended spacetime, there are also two separate exterior regions, sometimes called two different "universes", with the second universe allowing us to extrapolate some possible particle trajectories in the two interior regions. This means that the interior black-hole region can contain a mix of particles that fell in from either universe (and thus an observer who fell in from one universe might be able to see light that fell in from the other one), and likewise particles from the interior white-hole region can escape into either universe. All four regions can be seen in a spacetime diagram that uses Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
zerwe
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:25 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by zerwe »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:40 pm
Queequeg wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:37 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:31 pm

Nope. A fairly large dosage of LSD (which I do not recommend!) in my early adolescence made certain about that long before I met Dharma.
That lesson is called the Gospel of St. Owsley.
:good:

(…and St. Jerry.)
I also highly recommend this combination, but sadly the stars are no longer aligned in this way and dharma practice more than supersedes these experiences.

Of course, those who were "In search of the eternal buzz" either found the dharma, are on other paths, or are actually dead.

Shaun :namaste:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Malcolm »

Miorita wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:07 am
Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:40 am
Miorita wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:53 pm
On a relative level, the Sun is a permanent object/being who shines.
There are no permanent objects on the relative level, the sun included.
Lavoisier does not agree with you.
Lots of people did not agree with Nāgārjuna, but they were all wrong.
zerwe
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:25 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by zerwe »

Miorita wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:11 pm What do you call "a buzz" ?

Oh, I can see what you do: you still consider Mary Magdalene a sinner even if she was forgiven.

I'll report you all to my boss. Her name is Magdalena. :lol: It's not on me to correct your views. :lol:
Days of youth.

Eternal Buzz= Eternal Bliss

Sinner= Psychonaut (or during this era I preferred the term Psychedelic Ranger)

Shaun :namaste:
Nalanda
Posts: 646
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:35 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Nalanda »

Its very hard to call out a Buddha and say he got some things wrong. :jumping:
IF YOU PRACTICE WITH A STRONG BELIEF IN WHAT
YOU ARE DOING, THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT
YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR PRACTICE.

CHAKUNG JIGME WANGDRAK RINPOCHE

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Nalanda wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:29 am Its very hard to call out a Buddha and say he got some things wrong. :jumping:
Au contraire, it's frighteningly easy. Being right while claiming to refute the Buddhadharma: that's another matter entirely.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Dgj
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Dgj »

Buddha-nature
Main articles: Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
An influential division of 1st-millennium CE Buddhist texts develop the notion of Tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-nature.[76][77] The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine, at its earliest probably appeared about the later part of the 3rd century CE, and is verifiable in Chinese translations of 1st millennium CE.[78]

The Tathāgatagarbha is the topic of the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, where the title itself means a garbha (womb, matrix, seed) containing Tathāgata (Buddha). In the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras' the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self. The ultimate goal of the path is characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.[79]

These Sutras suggest, states Paul Williams, that 'all sentient beings contain a Tathāgata as their 'essence, core or essential inner nature'.[78] They also present a further developed understanding of emptiness, wherein the Buddha Nature, the Buddha and Liberation are seen as transcending the realm of emptiness, i.e. of the conditioned and dependently originated phenomena.[80]

One of these texts, the Angulimaliya Sutra, contrasts between empty phenomena such as the moral and emotional afflictions (kleshas), which are like ephemeral hailstones, and the enduring, eternal Buddha, which is like a precious gem:

The tens of millions of afflictive emotions like hail-stones are empty. The phenomena in the class of non-virtues, like hail-stones, quickly disintegrate. Buddha, like a vaidurya jewel, is permanent ... The liberation of a buddha also is form ... do not make a discrimination of non-division, saying, "The character of liberation is empty".'[81]

The Śrīmālā Sūtra is one of the earliest texts on Tathāgatagarbha thought, composed in 3rd century in south India, according to Brian Brown. It asserted that everyone can potentially attain Buddhahood, and warns against the doctrine of Sunyata.[82] The Śrīmālā Sūtra posits that the Buddha-nature is ultimately identifiable as the supramundane nature of the Buddha, the garbha is the ground for Buddha-nature, this nature is unborn and undying, has ultimate existence, has no beginning nor end, is nondual, and permanent.[83] The text also adds that the garbha has "no self, soul or personality" and "incomprehensible to anyone distracted by sunyata (voidness)"; rather it is the support for phenomenal existence.[84]

The notion of Buddha-nature and its interpretation was and continues to be widely debated in all schools of Mahayana Buddhism. Some traditions interpret the doctrine to be equivalent to emptiness (like the Tibetan Gelug school), the positive language of the texts Tathāgatagarbha sutras are then interpreted as being of provisional meaning, and not ultimately true. Other schools however (mainly the Jonang school), see Tathāgatagarbha as being an ultimate teaching and see it as an eternal, true self, while Sunyata is seen as a provisional, lower teaching.[85]

Likewise, western scholars have been divided in their interpretation of the Tathāgatagarbha, since the doctrine of an 'essential nature' in every living being appears to be confusing, since it seems to be equivalent to a 'Self',[note 8][87] which seems to contradict the doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts. Some scholars, however, view such teachings as metaphorical, not to be taken literally.[80]

According to some scholars, the Buddha nature which these sutras discuss, does not represent a substantial self (ātman). Rather, it is a positive expression of emptiness, and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.[88][89] According to others, the potential of salvation depends on the ontological reality of a salvific, abiding core reality — the Buddha-nature, empty of all mutability and error, fully present within all beings.[90]
-Wiki page on Sunyata
Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi-Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Studholme comments:

'Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synonymous with Svayambhu and Adinatha, 'primordial lord'.' [7
-Wiki page on Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra
Shentong (Tibetan: གཞན་སྟོང་, Wylie: gzhan stong, Lhasa dialect: [ɕɛ̃̀tṍŋ], also transliterated zhäntong or zhentong; literally "other-emptiness") is a position within Tibetan Madhyamaka. It applies śūnyatā in a specific way, agreeing that relative reality is empty of self-nature, but stating that absolute reality (Paramarthasatya)[2][note 1] is "non-dual Buddhajnana"[2][note 2] and "empty" (Wylie: stong) only of "other," (Wylie: gzhan) relative phenomena, but is itself not empty[3] and "truly existing."[4] This absolute reality is described by positive terms, an approach which helps "to overcome certain residual subtle concepts"[5] and "the habit [...] of negating whatever experience arises in his/her mind."[6] It destroys false concepts, as does prasangika, but it also alerts the practitioner "to the presence of a dynamic, positive Reality that is to be experienced once the conceptual mind is defeated."[6]
-Wiki page on Rangtong-Shentong
Āstika derives from the Sanskrit asti, "there is, there exists", and means one who believes in the existence of a Self/Soul[disambiguation needed] or Brahman, etc. and nāstika means the one who doesn't believe in existence of a Soul or Self.[1] These have been concepts used to classify Indian philosophies by modern scholars, and some Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina texts.[2][3][5]

...

According to Andrew Nicholson, later Buddhists understood Asanga to be targeting Madhyamaka Buddhism as nastika, while considering his own Yogacara Buddhist tradition to be astika.

-Wiki page on Astika and Nastika
Don't assume my words are correct. Do your research.

"Quarrel with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on the winner."
-Chandrakirti
Dgj
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Dgj »

ManiThePainter wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:55 pm
Dgj wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 5:22 pm do you feel that Nagarjuna's teaching, and the teaching in general that everything is empty, impermanent, etc. is irrefutable, and incontrovertibly true?
Nothing to feel, you can try it yourself.

Just put any philosophical view through Nagarjuna’s meatgrinder and see if it can stand up to analysis.
Well, this would possibly be true if Buddhism was strictly secular philosophy. However, it is also very much a religion, or some other type of thing that is not entirely within the rules and logic of secular philosophy, and possibly goes beyond them entirely. Thus, we don't have to use any meat grinding language at all. So, with religion, we can say things like: A positive Buddha Nature exists. This existent thing is beyond all words, logic, and reason. Any analysis falls short and can never disprove it, even if it ostensibly disproves this entire position. Language is meaningless, but this Buddha Nature is real and transcends language, and is meaningful. Anyone who disagrees has not experienced the truth. Anyone who tries to explain it with words will fail, anyone who tries to refute it with words will fail. Nonetheless, it exists and can be seen only by the wise who achieve transcendent understanding entirely beyond normal human perception of all and any kinds.

If language has no meaning, it cannot rule out something that transcends language, even if it supposedly disproves it using language, because that language is invalid and unrelated to this thing. Then again, even if language does have meaning, it still cannot rule something out that transcends language.

This kind of reasoning has zero place in philosophy and logic. However, there are no rules in religion, etc. against totally invalidating language and going on some kind of transcendent knowledge that doesn't rely on language at all. And Buddhism frequently, deliberately and openly eschews normal philosophy, logic and reasoning, and places itself firmly beyond language, and within the transcendent.

Hence, one could attain the transcendent, and confirm the position that Buddha Nature exists, and that Sunyata is a provisional teaching only that does not apply to Buddha Nature, and not rely on language at all, while not having a single thought about it.

In other words, there is nothing stopping an understanding from being valid in which one could realize that the teaching that dependent origination and emptiness invalidate or disprove an ultimately existing Buddha Nature are wrong, without relying on language nor methods of reasoning at all, and while being entirely beyond the ability of the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination, etc. to disprove their position, and there are hundreds, probably thousands of statements in the sutras and other writings that confirm this as a possibility, due to their deliberate eschewing of language, reason, etc. and affirming of transcendent understanding.

Also, skillful means (upaya) makes it possible that everything, including the teachings about emptiness being irrefutably true and successfully disproving all being, even nirvana and Buddha nature, are just skillful means, and ultimately point to something that actually is existent, understandable only by enlightened ones, many of which realize that teaching the opposite of an ultimate existent will lead to finding that ultimate existent.

All that said, I take no position on this at all. I'm just pondering different lines of reasoning as I read the sutras and texts. Seems a lot of things are not so easily pinned down, and thinking outside the box may be worthwhile.

Buddha-nature
Main articles: Buddha-nature and Tathāgatagarbha Sutras
An influential division of 1st-millennium CE Buddhist texts develop the notion of Tathāgatagarbha or Buddha-nature.[76][77] The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine, at its earliest probably appeared about the later part of the 3rd century CE, and is verifiable in Chinese translations of 1st millennium CE.[78]

The Tathāgatagarbha is the topic of the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras, where the title itself means a garbha (womb, matrix, seed) containing Tathāgata (Buddha). In the Tathāgatagarbha sūtras' the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self. The ultimate goal of the path is characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.[79]

These Sutras suggest, states Paul Williams, that 'all sentient beings contain a Tathāgata as their 'essence, core or essential inner nature'.[78] They also present a further developed understanding of emptiness, wherein the Buddha Nature, the Buddha and Liberation are seen as transcending the realm of emptiness, i.e. of the conditioned and dependently originated phenomena.[80]

One of these texts, the Angulimaliya Sutra, contrasts between empty phenomena such as the moral and emotional afflictions (kleshas), which are like ephemeral hailstones, and the enduring, eternal Buddha, which is like a precious gem:

The tens of millions of afflictive emotions like hail-stones are empty. The phenomena in the class of non-virtues, like hail-stones, quickly disintegrate. Buddha, like a vaidurya jewel, is permanent ... The liberation of a buddha also is form ... do not make a discrimination of non-division, saying, "The character of liberation is empty".'[81]

The Śrīmālā Sūtra is one of the earliest texts on Tathāgatagarbha thought, composed in 3rd century in south India, according to Brian Brown. It asserted that everyone can potentially attain Buddhahood, and warns against the doctrine of Sunyata.[82] The Śrīmālā Sūtra posits that the Buddha-nature is ultimately identifiable as the supramundane nature of the Buddha, the garbha is the ground for Buddha-nature, this nature is unborn and undying, has ultimate existence, has no beginning nor end, is nondual, and permanent.[83] The text also adds that the garbha has "no self, soul or personality" and "incomprehensible to anyone distracted by sunyata (voidness)"; rather it is the support for phenomenal existence.[84]

The notion of Buddha-nature and its interpretation was and continues to be widely debated in all schools of Mahayana Buddhism. Some traditions interpret the doctrine to be equivalent to emptiness (like the Tibetan Gelug school), the positive language of the texts Tathāgatagarbha sutras are then interpreted as being of provisional meaning, and not ultimately true. Other schools however (mainly the Jonang school), see Tathāgatagarbha as being an ultimate teaching and see it as an eternal, true self, while Sunyata is seen as a provisional, lower teaching.[85]

Likewise, western scholars have been divided in their interpretation of the Tathāgatagarbha, since the doctrine of an 'essential nature' in every living being appears to be confusing, since it seems to be equivalent to a 'Self',[note 8][87] which seems to contradict the doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts. Some scholars, however, view such teachings as metaphorical, not to be taken literally.[80]

According to some scholars, the Buddha nature which these sutras discuss, does not represent a substantial self (ātman). Rather, it is a positive expression of emptiness, and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.[88][89] According to others, the potential of salvation depends on the ontological reality of a salvific, abiding core reality — the Buddha-nature, empty of all mutability and error, fully present within all beings.[90]
-Wiki page on Sunyata
Avalokitesvara himself is linked in the versified version of the sutra to the first Buddha, the Adi-Buddha, who is 'svayambhu' (self-existent, not born from anything or anyone). Studholme comments:

'Avalokitesvara himself, the verse sutra adds, is an emanation of the Adibuddha, or 'primordial Buddha', a term that is explicitly said to be synonymous with Svayambhu and Adinatha, 'primordial lord'.' [7
-Wiki page on Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra
Shentong (Tibetan: གཞན་སྟོང་, Wylie: gzhan stong, Lhasa dialect: [ɕɛ̃̀tṍŋ], also transliterated zhäntong or zhentong; literally "other-emptiness") is a position within Tibetan Madhyamaka. It applies śūnyatā in a specific way, agreeing that relative reality is empty of self-nature, but stating that absolute reality (Paramarthasatya)[2][note 1] is "non-dual Buddhajnana"[2][note 2] and "empty" (Wylie: stong) only of "other," (Wylie: gzhan) relative phenomena, but is itself not empty[3] and "truly existing."[4] This absolute reality is described by positive terms, an approach which helps "to overcome certain residual subtle concepts"[5] and "the habit [...] of negating whatever experience arises in his/her mind."[6] It destroys false concepts, as does prasangika, but it also alerts the practitioner "to the presence of a dynamic, positive Reality that is to be experienced once the conceptual mind is defeated."[6]
-Wiki page on Rangtong-Shentong
Don't assume my words are correct. Do your research.

"Quarrel with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on the winner."
-Chandrakirti
User avatar
ManiThePainter
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:04 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by ManiThePainter »

You should read some of Nagarjuna’s treatises on Madhyamaka instead of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a good place for information on Buddhism.
"Don't mind me, just trying to find the nearest exit"
- someone stuck in Samsara... or maybe lost in Walmart
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Malcolm »

Dgj wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:30 pm
In other words, there is nothing stopping an understanding from being valid in which one could realize that the teaching that dependent origination and emptiness invalidate or disprove an ultimately existing Buddha Nature are wrong
Yes, there is quite a bit stoping such an understanding. There is not such a thing as a self which is anything more than a designation for the series of aggregates. Such an understanding that you suggest is just Hinduism in drag.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Aemilius »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:37 pm
Dgj wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:30 pm
In other words, there is nothing stopping an understanding from being valid in which one could realize that the teaching that dependent origination and emptiness invalidate or disprove an ultimately existing Buddha Nature are wrong
Yes, there is quite a bit stoping such an understanding. There is not such a thing as a self which is anything more than a designation for the series of aggregates. Such an understanding that you suggest is just Hinduism in drag.
Conventional everyday reality/language exists even for Buddhas. Buddha Shakyamuni had a father, a mother, relatives, clan, tribe, country and upbringing. These make up one's identity and position in a society. He is called Shakya-muni, i.e. a sage/silent one of the Shakya people. That is an identity. And it is Buddhism that accepts reality as it truly is.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Malcolm »

Aemilius wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 9:45 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:37 pm
Dgj wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:30 pm
In other words, there is nothing stopping an understanding from being valid in which one could realize that the teaching that dependent origination and emptiness invalidate or disprove an ultimately existing Buddha Nature are wrong
Yes, there is quite a bit stoping such an understanding. There is not such a thing as a self which is anything more than a designation for the series of aggregates. Such an understanding that you suggest is just Hinduism in drag.
Conventional everyday reality/language exists even for Buddhas. Buddha Shakyamuni had a father, a mother, relatives, clan, tribe, country and upbringing. These make up one's identity and position in a society. He is called Shakya-muni, i.e. a sage/silent one of the Shakya people. That is an identity. And it is Buddhism that accepts reality as it truly is.
Yes, a conventional designation of the series of skandhas called “Buddha.” But there is no real or permanent identity there.
Si-va-kon
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:49 pm
Location: Central Asia

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Si-va-kon »

The referent of any word/concept is "empty".
A series of one-time objects conceived by us as one and the same object.

This mental image of an object "lasting" in time, created by the consciousness, is able to enter into connection with the word,
i.e. suitable for naming as well as for storing in memory.

And this "nomenclature unit" exists as a mental projection, as an artificial overlay on reality.

Cows, pudgals, pots - just such "imaginary" objects. In reality, there are only a fast change of frames,
a series of different (consisting of different groups atoms) of unique instantaneous objects,
divorced not only substantially, but also according to the time intervals of their existence.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Malcolm »

Si-va-kon wrote: Sat Feb 05, 2022 7:46 pm The referent of any word/concept is "empty".
A series of one-time objects conceived by us as one and the same object.

This mental image of an object "lasting" in time, created by the consciousness, is able to enter into connection with the word,
i.e. suitable for naming as well as for storing in memory.

And this "nomenclature unit" exists as a mental projection, as an artificial overlay on reality.

Cows, pudgals, pots - just such "imaginary" objects. In reality, there are only a fast change of frames,
a series of different (consisting of different groups atoms) of unique instantaneous objects,
divorced not only substantially, but also according to the time intervals of their existence.
Atoms are also imaginary objects, no less than cows, etc.
Dgj
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Dgj »

ManiThePainter wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:04 pm You should read some of Nagarjuna’s treatises on Madhyamaka instead of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a good place for information on Buddhism.
The wiki articles contain quotes from the sutras confirming a positive reality, as well as positions of scholars. Not to mention that there is a Tibetan Buddhist teaching that agrees
that there is a positive Buddha nature (see works of Dolpopa Sherap Gyeltsen). Perhaps you should read them more carefully before dismissing them. Nagarjuna is not the only authority on Buddhism.
Last edited by Dgj on Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Don't assume my words are correct. Do your research.

"Quarrel with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on the winner."
-Chandrakirti
Dgj
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Dgj »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:37 pm
Dgj wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:30 pm
In other words, there is nothing stopping an understanding from being valid in which one could realize that the teaching that dependent origination and emptiness invalidate or disprove an ultimately existing Buddha Nature are wrong
Yes, there is quite a bit stoping such an understanding. There is not such a thing as a self which is anything more than a designation for the series of aggregates. Such an understanding that you suggest is just Hinduism in drag.
Tell that to the Tibetan Buddhists who believe this and base it on sutras that support this understanding, all the way back to Dolpopa Sherap Gyeltsen. And, sorry, but no, if Nagarjuna's logic destroys all being, including transcendent being beyond language, then it destroys itself, too. This can only demonstrate that language is fallable or ultimately meaningless, and thus can say nothing about anything. See Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" and "Philosophical Investigations" and also Stafford L Betty "Nagarjuna’s Masterpiece: Logical, Mystical, Both, or Neither?"

In other words, just because Nagarjuna claimed to disprove all being, and agreed even his own teachings are empty does not mean he won philosphy forever. Just a language game, and then only a game which follows his rules (see Richard Robinson "Did Nagarjuna Really Refute All Philosphical Views?").
Last edited by Dgj on Mon Feb 21, 2022 8:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Don't assume my words are correct. Do your research.

"Quarrel with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on the winner."
-Chandrakirti
Dgj
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Dgj »

Here's another question for you all:

Are there things you are not aware of? Is it possible there are things that you cannot be aware of? Is it possible there are things that are totally outside human awareness or even comprehension?

Of course, the answer to all of the above is "Yes."

Since this is the case, it is completely impossible to prove completely, using words alone, that no being nor permanence is possible.

Humans with human language thinking permanence and being is impossible is not as powerful as it might seem when we look at how large the universe is, and how small and simple we are by comparison.
Don't assume my words are correct. Do your research.

"Quarrel with the evidence of everyday experience, and afterward we will rely on the winner."
-Chandrakirti
Archie2009
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:39 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by Archie2009 »

Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?
No. People and their addiction to philosophizing. Besides, there is a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was right. Direct perception of emptiness. Unless you think the Buddha was full of it. Then you'll never know.
User avatar
ManiThePainter
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:04 pm

Re: Can you conceive of a scenario where it turns out Nagarjuna was wrong (ex: not all things are empty, or otherwise)?

Post by ManiThePainter »

Dgj wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:59 pm
ManiThePainter wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:04 pm You should read some of Nagarjuna’s treatises on Madhyamaka instead of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a good place for information on Buddhism.
The wiki articles contain quotes from the sutras confirming a positive reality, as well as positions of scholars. Not to mention that there is a Tibetan Buddhist teaching that agrees
that there is a positive Buddha nature. Perhaps you should read them more carefully before dismissing them. Nagarjuna is not the only authority on Buddhism.
How will you know if these are solid points or merely straw-men arguments by the writers you cite if you don’t want to read the works that they are criticizing?
"Don't mind me, just trying to find the nearest exit"
- someone stuck in Samsara... or maybe lost in Walmart
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”