Nagarjuna's Middle Way: The Abandonment of All Views
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- In this lecture video I give an account of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika focused on critiquing Abhidharma metaphysics in defense of taking emptiness literally and abandoning all views
This was excellent and so well explained! Thank you for clarifying for me - specifically recognizing that Nagarjuna's clarification was pedagogical. I think people who explore this doctrine - myself included - were looking to this as some kind of "definition" of "reality." That cleared a lot up for me. Many, many thanks!
I'm glad you found the video helpful. But I do want to make sure that this is just one interpretation. And what to make of Nagarjuna is heavily debated. Some, like Siderits, see him as an anti-realist. Others, like Mills, see him as a skeptic of philosophy.
@@armchairprofessor4249 The beauty of all this, IMHO, is that it is all based on the perception of the observer. I try to acknowledge the existence of the extremes of nihilism and absolutism, and recognize their power to "convince" us these perspectives can be perceieved as "legitimate," but ultimately try to align myself with the "Emptiness" of the Middle Way. The myriad of perspectives intrigue me! Thanks again for a wonderful video!
@@armchairprofessor4249 "Some, like Siderits, see him as an anti-realist. Others, like Mills, see him as a skeptic of philosophy." I do not see him at all. Who is there to see? What is there to see? Just this, but I do not know what it is. Always just this and not this.
While I have followed the path of Mahayana for many years & knew Nargarjuna was a great teacher, I never knew some of the reasons. Now I have an idea as to why. Thank you Sir. Peace
Thank you so much for this very concise and coherent explanation on something that cannot be taught with words. The Middle Path lead to the realization beyond all views. Words such as ‘realization, truth, ultimate reality’, etc maybe useful pointers along a gradual path but must also be seen in the same light as everything else, neither non-existent nor existent. That leaves us with the direct experience only.
The paths of Dzogchen (Maha Ati) and Chagchen (Mahamudra) both direct the practitioner towards the direct experience beyond any conceptualization. The language used within these teachings use metaphors such as ‘illusory appearances, mirror-like reflections, apparitions, dream-like nature’ and such to point the attention towards a more experiential way of relating to dharmas. But ultimately no words or thoughts can describe or point to reality itself, since that too is a concept without self-nature.
I think your explanation took us through the different steps towards a ‘logical conclusion’ just as I think Nagarjuna intended. I thank you wholeheartedly for this. 🙏
dear bro
u hv just sealed my faith in humanity
much 2 be said here
indeed yr lecture is a fine e.g. of the comsumate understanding of the perfection of wisdom n compassion of the buddha
The buddha is one with that purity
He is purity itself
One of the keys or gateway 2 the middleway is not arguing or building systems like u said
Whereas u do understand by saying so
You r expounding the middleway
avoiding the polarities of extremes which is not intended 4 arguments sake
i can cleary see yr message
To u a revered one
tq 🙏
Beautifully explained, been so lost with this doctrine and none provided a clearer picture than you did, so thank you!
really , none . You should listen to the teachings of the Dalai Lama. This guy has no idea what he is talking about
As of now, I understand emptiness from Madhyamaka Buddhism to be the negative catuskoti. In other words, Madhyamika emptiness is "No," to all views, including Madhyamaka Buddhism and their elaboration of emptiness. Although, for Prasangika Madhyamaka I think they are nihilistic. Even though Prasangika Madhyamaka is not ontological nihilism, I think it's more like an epistemological nihilism. However, I think Svatantrika Madhyamaka is a Madhyamika escape from a complete epistemological nihilism since they say objective truth/svabhava does work conventionally. What are your thoughts about this, and do you think Madhyamaka under certain interpretations could be an epistemic nihilism?
Here we go again
Good intro and explanation. Where did the Buddha actually.say all is niether real or unreal? I've seen a Sutta in the Pali Canon where the Buddha says, "Existence and non-existence are extreme views, I teach the middle." And then mentions dependent origination, to imply that the concept of existence and non-existence do not apply to what is dependently originating.
Thich Naht Hanh taught us that " nothing existence by itself alone", and "something can not come from nothing" to help negate the notion of intrinsic existence. The Pali Dictionary quotes the phrase, "nothing abides, not even for a moment", to help demonstrate that what is constantly changing lacks self nature. Thay also said, we derive our idea of birth and death by a false notion that, first there was nothing, then we were born, and when we die there will be nothing again. Because of the notion of birth there is the notion of death, rather than a process of continual transformation.
If I remember correctly from the text by Nargarjuna, Advice to a King. Nargarjuna used a series of logical statements to negate cause and effect itself, as the ultimate insight into emptiness, but warned not to take that to mean that one should disregard the significance of the Buddhas teachings on Karma and the need for ethical disciple. In that sense the ultimate understanding liberates while the cause and effect level of reality is also very relevant to our human experience.
"Karma and the need for ethical discipline. In that sense, the ultimate understanding liberates while the cause and effect level of reality is also very relevant to our human experience." Hehe. Who is having a human experience? Find that one and come back.
Legion
“Man has no individual i. But there are hundreds and thousands of separate small "i"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "i". And each time his “i” is different. just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.”
G.I. Gurdjieff
Great work ✨
I think neither are right (nor wrong)
Can I know your sources
I used the Siderits translation called Nagarjuna's Middle Way.
Hey brother, Mahayana tradition are all written in Sanskrit that's why it is also known as Sanskrit Tradition Buddhism. You are referring to " Abhidharma bhuddhism", who taught you such things called Abhidharma bhuddhism 🤔🤔🤔, there is a Abhidharma texts and that texts is common in both in Pali tradition Buddhism and Sanskrit Tradition Buddhism as well.
First understand this, Pali tradition Buddhism is a foundation which is four Nobel truth and 37 practices, in Mahayana or Sanskrit Tradition Buddhism, the emphasis is on the use of reasoning and logic in order to combat with negative emotions through wisdom which is reasoning and logical approach because Siddharth Gautam Buddha, he himself said to his disciples that, oh my followers you should not follow my teaching out of faith, rather follows it after thorough investigation and examination like a gold Smit test the purity of Gold by rubbing, burning and hammering.
You'll have to take that up with Mark Siderits
It's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. That's one of the reasons Hindus have such a hard time understanding Buddhism - many words have different implications.
The main specialty of Mahayana Buddhism is not reasoning/logic, but 1. the use of mantras to speed up progress, 2. The Bodhisattva ideal as opposed to the Arahant ideal of Theravada.
Reasoning became important because suddenly at the beginning of common era there was competition from Jains and Hindus, while during the Buddha's time Indian philosophy was still in early stages so Buddhists faced few capable opponents philosophically speaking.