Nagarjuna & Early Buddhist Texts

1 Like

Nagarjuna is perhaps most well-known for expounding on the two-truths doctrine, for finding the middle way between existence and non-existence, which he saw as based on the early Buddhist texts:

Nāgārjuna based his statement of the two truths on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta. In the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, the Buddha, speaking to the monk Kaccayana Gotta on the topic of right view, describes the middle Way between nihilsm and eternalism:

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, “non-existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, “existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one.[30]
Two truths doctrine - Wikipedia

2 Likes

So you noticed my post was vague! Sorry, it was years ago I read it, and I can’t recall much about it. I think there was a line in the MMK that quoted or closely echoed a phrase from the Prajnaparamita Sutra.

5 Likes

I also can’t source it, but it know that it is commonly said that Ven Nāgārjuna allegedly worked “chiefly” with these sets of scriptures. Of course, actually looking at the texts cited systematically has shown that the Buddhavacana sourced is mostly from earlier layers.

Still, I can’t imagine that there is nothing behind the association other than the folktale of a psychically scuba-diving Nāgārjuna descending to the bottom of the Indian Ocean to visit the Nāga society and retrieve them.

Of course, Nāgārjuna has written a lot more than Nāgārjuna has written. So that might be where the associations lie moreso, with those texts.

2 Likes

This is a reminder that participation in the forum is an opportunity to practice right speech. Please consider this before making a post.

Similarly, the meme involving H H the Dalai Lama, adds nothing to the discourse, and instead inclines to disrespect. Would you post this on a temple message board?

7 Likes

This topic was automatically opened after 12 hours.

Does anyone know which Nāgārjuna is believed to have written the Vigrahavyāvartanī? It quotes directly from the Aṣṭasāhasrikaprājnāpāramitāsūtra.

I am not finding any ‘definite’ prājnāpāramitā quotes in the MMK so far, but it would be so hard to identify a quotation, the body of literature being quoted is so vast, and so much of it lost.

I think most scholars, modern (Lindtner, David S Ruegg) and ancient commentators on Nagarjuna, like Candrakirti etc, agree that the texts of the Yukti corpus are by the historical Nagarjuna. According to Jan Westerhoff (in his translation of the Vigrahavyavartani), “The most detailed case against attributing the Vigrahavyavartani to Nagarjuna
has been made by Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti in a paper published in 1998”, however he goes on to critique their arguments as not being very strong.

Of course it is impossible to truly establish that it is from the same author as the MMK, but without any strong evidence against it, it seems that it makes the most sense that it was by Nagarjuna.

Anyways, can I ask you for the quote you referenced?

1 Like

In my opinion, due to Nagarjuna, vasuvandhu philosophy Buddhism still alive in around the world. Nagarjuna is a Incredible scholar for core teaching of the Tathagata.

3 Likes

Unfortunately, it seems the “reference” was actually just an opening dedication to Mañjuśrī which is only in the Tibetan redactions, not in the Sanskrit.

Yes, I agree! I find both of their works so stimulating and insightful. That was an age when the greatest minds of the time were applying themselves to understand many very subtle implications of the Dhamma.

3 Likes

Here’s something.

What Buddhavacana is Ven Nāgārjuna’s negatve tetralemma quoting to produce lemmata 3 & 4, namely nadvābhyāṃ (not both) & nāpyahetutaḥ (not acausally) when it is expressed like this:

  1. nasvāto (not from self)
  2. nāpiparato (nor from other)
  3. nadvābhyāṃ (not from both [self & other])
  4. nāpyahetutaḥ (not acausally)

?

When the tetralemma is expressed like this:

  1. Not existing
  2. Not nonexisting
  3. Not both existing and nonexisting
  4. Not neither existing nor nonexisting

What Buddhavacana produces 3 & 4?

2 Likes

This thing of tetralemma sounds amazingly close to the evasiveness and equivocation of some particular teachers contemporary of the Buddha, also known as well wriggling (DN1, DA21)

1 Like

I’ve said it before, the Buddha, without dependent origination, would himself be an eel-wriggler in the very silences we call noble. Having the explanation of dependent origination seems to be the linchpin, as the amaravikṣepa are defined by not actually having a position/explanation behind all their evasions.

Actually “getting” this explanation is another matter.

3 Likes

The Catuṣkoṭi appears in numerous suttas, like the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta MN 63.

2 Likes

I would like to pull out a phrase from the above quote:

The prapañca. This evasiveness claims to be for the opposite. For prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam, for the auspicious calming of prapaña, if my Sanskrit isn’t off in saying that.

I don’t claim to “get” much, but there is something that I think I might “get” about this tetralemma business, from prapañc-ing about it endlessly trying to get what its “about”.

You just stop. That’s it’s lesson. It says it right in the opening:

anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||
there is neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor eternity, neither one nor many, neither coming nor going, according to dependent origination, the auspicious calming of proliferation, I salute the Saṃbuddha, the greatest speaker, who taught the doctrine.
(MMK dedicatory verse, if my secondhand Sanskrit if not off)

All of this “neither/nor”:

Stops all possible options for equivocations, particularly the 4th lemma, which is essentially rounding off the rest of the options for the inventive speculator.

“What if something both exists and doesn’t exist so fundamentally at the same time that it truly can’t be called ‘existing’, because it doesn’t exist, it can’t be called ‘nonexisting’, because it exists, and it can’t be called ‘both’, because the manner of the non-dual relations between its extant and non-extant states are such that it can also be correctly described as ‘only one of these states’ at any given time in addition to being in both of these states at any given time.”

That is what the 4th lemma gets rid of. It is the “and 1-3 were the only options you ever had” 4th option.

1 Like

From this we get a positive tetralemma of representing negative views to be abandoned:

  1. hoti tathāgato
  2. na hoti tathāgato
  3. hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato
  4. neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato

which is essentially this presentation here:

This doesn’t cover the tetralemma from the opening of the Pratyayaparīkṣā Ch1, though:

Where would we find 3 & 4 from here? Lemmata 1 & 2 are easy to find in EBT Buddhavacana. I think these, 3 & 4, are Abhidharma refutations. But maybe the suttāni address this?

1 Like

If I remember correctly, there were some non-Buddhist sramanas who held 4, that things arise acausaly or randomly. Perhaps there is a sutta that refutes this idea. But maybe I am confusing something else.

I’m not sure about 3 however, but it seems like, if you hold 1 and 2, then 3 just follows from that.

I believe AN 3.61 has a passage that does.

2 Likes