Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


Difference between revisions of "The two truths of Nagarjuna"

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DisplayImages|743|2438}}  
 
{{DisplayImages|743|2438}}  
 
<poem>
 
<poem>
Ken sees [[nonduality]] as the {{Wiki|integration}} of the [[absolute]] and [[relative]] realms. But it’s in how Ken frames the [[absolute]] and [[relative]] wherein I think [[Nagarjuna]] might differ. Ken sees the [[absolute]] causal realm as an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] and [[unchanging]], whereas the [[relative]] [[realm]] is the [[realm]] of change and flux. [[Nagarjuna’s]] [[two truths doctrine]] though doesn’t seem to see it this way. For example the following excerpt shows their [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]], not their {{Wiki|distinction}}. Their {{Wiki|distinction}} arises from a causal {{Wiki|theory}} of a fixed [[nature]] which reifies their [[dualistic]] differences. [[Nagarjuna]] clarifies how a fixed causal is erroneous within his notions of [[emptiness]] and dependent arising.  
+
Ken sees [[nonduality]] as the {{Wiki|integration}} of the [[absolute]] and [[relative]] realms. But it’s in how Ken frames the [[absolute]] and [[relative]] wherein I think [[Nagarjuna]] might differ. Ken sees the [[absolute]] causal [[realm]] as an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] and [[unchanging]], whereas the [[relative]] [[realm]] is the [[realm]] of change and flux. [[Nagarjuna’s]] [[two truths doctrine]] though doesn’t seem to see it this way. For example the following excerpt shows their [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]], not their {{Wiki|distinction}}. Their {{Wiki|distinction}} arises from a causal {{Wiki|theory}} of a fixed [[nature]] which rectifies their [[dualistic]] differences. [[Nagarjuna]] clarifies how a fixed causal is erroneous within his notions of [[emptiness]] and [[dependent arising]].  
  
 
From the Internet {{Wiki|Encyclopedia}} of [[Philosophy]]: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm   
 
From the Internet {{Wiki|Encyclopedia}} of [[Philosophy]]: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm   
Line 7: Line 7:
 
In his {{Wiki|revolutionary}} tract of The [[Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way]], [[Nagarjuna]] abjectly throws this elementary {{Wiki|distinction}} between [[samsara and nirvana]] out the door, and does so in the very [[name]] of the [[Buddha]]. “There is not the slightest {{Wiki|distinction}},” he declares in the work, “between [[samsara and nirvana]]. The limit of the one is the limit of the other.” Now how can such a thing be posited, that is, the [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] of [[samsara and nirvana]], without totally undermining the {{Wiki|theoretical}} basis and {{Wiki|practical}} goals of [[Buddhism]] as such? For if there is no difference between the [[world]] of [[suffering]] and the [[attainment]] of [[peace]], then what sort of work is a [[Buddhist]] to do as one who seeks to end [[suffering]]? [[Nagarjuna]] counters by reminding the [[Buddhist]] [[philosophers]] that, just as [[Gautama Sakyamuni]] had rejected both [[metaphysical]] and [[empirical]] {{Wiki|substantialism}} through the [[teaching]] of “no-soul” ([[anatman]]) and causal [[interdependence]] ([[pratityasamputpada]]), so {{Wiki|Scholastic}} [[Buddhism]] had to remain faithful to this non-substantialist stance through a rejection of the causal theories which necessitated notions of fixed [[nature]] ([[svabhava]]), theories which metaphysically reified the difference between [[samsara and nirvana]]. This later rejection could be based on [[Nagarjuna’s]] newly coined notion of the “[[emptiness]],” “[[zeroness]]” or “[[voidness]]” ([[sunyata]]) of all things.”  
 
In his {{Wiki|revolutionary}} tract of The [[Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way]], [[Nagarjuna]] abjectly throws this elementary {{Wiki|distinction}} between [[samsara and nirvana]] out the door, and does so in the very [[name]] of the [[Buddha]]. “There is not the slightest {{Wiki|distinction}},” he declares in the work, “between [[samsara and nirvana]]. The limit of the one is the limit of the other.” Now how can such a thing be posited, that is, the [[Wikipedia:Identity (social science)|identity]] of [[samsara and nirvana]], without totally undermining the {{Wiki|theoretical}} basis and {{Wiki|practical}} goals of [[Buddhism]] as such? For if there is no difference between the [[world]] of [[suffering]] and the [[attainment]] of [[peace]], then what sort of work is a [[Buddhist]] to do as one who seeks to end [[suffering]]? [[Nagarjuna]] counters by reminding the [[Buddhist]] [[philosophers]] that, just as [[Gautama Sakyamuni]] had rejected both [[metaphysical]] and [[empirical]] {{Wiki|substantialism}} through the [[teaching]] of “no-soul” ([[anatman]]) and causal [[interdependence]] ([[pratityasamputpada]]), so {{Wiki|Scholastic}} [[Buddhism]] had to remain faithful to this non-substantialist stance through a rejection of the causal theories which necessitated notions of fixed [[nature]] ([[svabhava]]), theories which metaphysically reified the difference between [[samsara and nirvana]]. This later rejection could be based on [[Nagarjuna’s]] newly coined notion of the “[[emptiness]],” “[[zeroness]]” or “[[voidness]]” ([[sunyata]]) of all things.”  
  
Another article also explores these 3 [[elements]] in [[Nagarjuna]] and how they relate. Here the [[two truths doctrine]] is not about an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]], [[unchanging]] and [[absolute truth]] in {{Wiki|distinction}} to a changing [[relative]] realm. The “higher” [[truth]] is again about the [[reification]] of an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] essense, as in a “causal [[realm]]” formulation. Thus the [[nondual]] of [[Nagarjuna]] is not about integrating an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] with a [[relative]] but about undoing an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] in the first place. In Ken’s terms it is postmetaphysical in undermining the [[metaphysical]] assumption of an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]. And Ken is still making such assumptions with his intepretation of an [[unchanging]] causal realm.  
+
Another article also explores these 3 [[elements]] in [[Nagarjuna]] and how they relate. Here the [[two truths doctrine]] is not about an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]], [[unchanging]] and [[absolute truth]] in {{Wiki|distinction}} to a changing [[relative]] [[realm]]. The “higher” [[truth]] is again about the [[reification]] of an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] essense, as in a “causal [[realm]]” formulation. Thus the [[nondual]] of [[Nagarjuna]] is not about integrating an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] with a [[relative]] but about undoing an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]] in the first place. In Ken’s terms it is postmetaphysical in undermining the [[metaphysical]] assumption of an [[Wikipedia:Absolute (philosophy)|ultimate]]. And Ken is still making such assumptions with his intepretation of an [[unchanging]] causal realm.  
  
 
From “The [[Zen]] Teachings of [[Nagarjuna]]” by Vladimir K. at http://www.thezensite.com/zen%20essays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdf  
 
From “The [[Zen]] Teachings of [[Nagarjuna]]” by Vladimir K. at http://www.thezensite.com/zen%20essays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdf  
  
The [[two truths doctrine]] is based on the [[view]] that there are two [[realities]]: [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[reality]] and the [[truth]] about this [[reality]] (a œlower truth), and [[ultimate reality]] and its [[truth]] (a higher truth). In the final analysis, however, [[Nagarjuna]] rejects this [[duality]] and teaches that both [[realities]] are one and the same. It is our so-called ˜common sense™ [[understanding]] of the [[world]] that [[causes]] the problem because we tend to see the [[world]] as a collection of discrete entities interacting with each other and with the [[self]]. In the [[Buddhist]] [[view]], this is called [[ignorance]] and leads to [[suffering]] ([[dukha]]). The [[two truths doctrine]] is based on the practicality of [[teaching]] ([[upaya]]) rather than {{Wiki|dogma}}. From a [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] viewpoint, we can say that things are [[causally]] produced and are [[impermanent]] but from a higher viewpoint, causal production and [[impermanence]] (or [[permanence]]) cannot be established and [[dualistic]] [[thinking]] must be rejected. (Cheng, 1991:45)
+
The [[two truths doctrine]] is based on the [[view]] that there are two [[realities]]: [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[reality]] and the [[truth]] about this [[reality]] (a [[lower truth]]), and [[ultimate reality]] and its [[truth]] (a [[higher truth]]). In the final analysis, however, [[Nagarjuna]] rejects this [[duality]] and teaches that both [[realities]] are one and the same. It is our so-called ˜{{Wiki|common sense}}™ [[understanding]] of the [[world]] that [[causes]] the problem because we tend to see the [[world]] as a collection of discrete entities interacting with each other and with the [[self]]. In the [[Buddhist]] [[view]], this is called [[ignorance]] and leads to [[suffering]] ([[dukha]]). The [[two truths doctrine]] is based on the practicality of [[teaching]] ([[upaya]]) rather than {{Wiki|dogma}}. From a [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] viewpoint, we can say that things are [[causally]] produced and are [[impermanent]] but from a higher viewpoint, causal production and [[impermanence]] (or [[permanence]]) cannot be established and [[dualistic]] [[thinking]] must be rejected. (Cheng, 1991:45)
  
[[Ultimate truth]] for [[Nagarjuna]] is the [[truth]] of an [[enlightened]] clarity which does not mistake the [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] for something [[essential]] ([[reification]]). This is where [[emptiness]] comes in as [[Nagarjuna]] teaches that all things are [[empty]] and the [[understanding]] of this [[emptiness]] leads to a greater [[truth]] of the way things really are. Of course, fundamentally, there is no real difference between the two [[realities]] as this truth of the [[highest]] meaning posits that œindividual [[existence]] cannot be grounded outside the context of everyday experience,(Huntington, 1989:48) thereby linking the two [[realities]] into one. In other words, a ˜higher [[truth]] is based only on [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[reality]], not on a [[metaphysics]].
+
[[Ultimate truth]] for [[Nagarjuna]] is the [[truth]] of an [[enlightened]] clarity which does not mistake the [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] for something [[essential]] ([[reification]]). This is where [[emptiness]] comes in as [[Nagarjuna]] teaches that all things are [[empty]] and the [[understanding]] of this [[emptiness]] leads to a greater [[truth]] of the way things really are. Of course, fundamentally, there is no real difference between the two [[realities]] as this [[truth]] of the [[highest]] meaning posits that œindividual [[existence]] cannot be grounded outside the context of everyday experience,(Huntington, 1989:48) thereby linking the two [[realities]] into one. In other words, a ˜higher [[truth]] is based only on [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] [[reality]], not on a [[metaphysics]].
 
</poem>
 
</poem>
 
{{R}}
 
{{R}}

Revision as of 04:04, 11 August 2014

Imag41.jpg
Novice monk with teapot.jpg

Ken sees nonduality as the integration of the absolute and relative realms. But it’s in how Ken frames the absolute and relative wherein I think Nagarjuna might differ. Ken sees the absolute causal realm as an ultimate and unchanging, whereas the relative realm is the realm of change and flux. Nagarjuna’s two truths doctrine though doesn’t seem to see it this way. For example the following excerpt shows their identity, not their distinction. Their distinction arises from a causal theory of a fixed nature which rectifies their dualistic differences. Nagarjuna clarifies how a fixed causal is erroneous within his notions of emptiness and dependent arising.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htmÂ

In his revolutionary tract of The Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, Nagarjuna abjectly throws this elementary distinction between samsara and nirvana out the door, and does so in the very name of the Buddha. “There is not the slightest distinction,” he declares in the work, “between samsara and nirvana. The limit of the one is the limit of the other.” Now how can such a thing be posited, that is, the identity of samsara and nirvana, without totally undermining the theoretical basis and practical goals of Buddhism as such? For if there is no difference between the world of suffering and the attainment of peace, then what sort of work is a Buddhist to do as one who seeks to end suffering? Nagarjuna counters by reminding the Buddhist philosophers that, just as Gautama Sakyamuni had rejected both metaphysical and empirical substantialism through the teaching of “no-soul” (anatman) and causal interdependence (pratityasamputpada), so Scholastic Buddhism had to remain faithful to this non-substantialist stance through a rejection of the causal theories which necessitated notions of fixed nature (svabhava), theories which metaphysically reified the difference between samsara and nirvana. This later rejection could be based on Nagarjuna’s newly coined notion of the “emptiness,” “zeroness” or “voidness” (sunyata) of all things.”Â

Another article also explores these 3 elements in Nagarjuna and how they relate. Here the two truths doctrine is not about an ultimate, unchanging and absolute truth in distinction to a changing relative realm. The “higher” truth is again about the reification of an ultimate essense, as in a “causal realm” formulation. Thus the nondual of Nagarjuna is not about integrating an ultimate with a relative but about undoing an ultimate in the first place. In Ken’s terms it is postmetaphysical in undermining the metaphysical assumption of an ultimate. And Ken is still making such assumptions with his intepretation of an unchanging causal realm.Â

From “The Zen Teachings of Nagarjuna” by Vladimir K. at http://www.thezensite.com/zen%20essays/zenteachingsofnagarjuna.pdfÂ

The two truths doctrine is based on the view that there are two realities: conventional reality and the truth about this reality (a lower truth), and ultimate reality and its truth (a higher truth). In the final analysis, however, Nagarjuna rejects this duality and teaches that both realities are one and the same. It is our so-called ˜common senseunderstanding of the world that causes the problem because we tend to see the world as a collection of discrete entities interacting with each other and with the self. In the Buddhist view, this is called ignorance and leads to suffering (dukha). The two truths doctrine is based on the practicality of teaching (upaya) rather than dogma. From a conventional viewpoint, we can say that things are causally produced and are impermanent but from a higher viewpoint, causal production and impermanence (or permanence) cannot be established and dualistic thinking must be rejected. (Cheng, 1991:45)

Ultimate truth for Nagarjuna is the truth of an enlightened clarity which does not mistake the conventional for something essential (reification). This is where emptiness comes in as Nagarjuna teaches that all things are empty and the understanding of this emptiness leads to a greater truth of the way things really are. Of course, fundamentally, there is no real difference between the two realities as this truth of the highest meaning posits that œindividual existence cannot be grounded outside the context of everyday experience,(Huntington, 1989:48) thereby linking the two realities into one. In other words, a ˜higher truth is based only on conventional reality, not on a metaphysics.

Source

openintegral.wordpress.com