Thanks for raising this @Coemgenu. Very elegantly and diplomatically handled!
Hi Bhante
Could I trouble you to mention that sutra that forms the basis of Nagarjuna’s identification of emptiness with Dependant Arising? I pray it’s not the parallel to SN 12.15, to which we had a particularly fruitful discussion at -
I think I made the point there that with the loss of the “sarvaṃ asti” and “sarvaṃ n’asti” in the Agama parallel to SN 12.15, as well as the loss of parallels for SN 12.47 and SN 12.48, the sarvaṃ became dislocated from its Upanisadic context of the “soul” and became confused with the Buddhist sarvaṃ in SN 35.23 and SN 35.24. It is not difficult at all, once this mis-identification took place, that one loses sight of the context of SN 12.15 and its parallels, ie the existence and non-existence of personality/personhood (sakkāya). Without that context, I think Nagarjuna may have without justification assumed that the characterisation of Existence (atthitaṃ) and Non-Existence (natthitaṃ) as 2 extremes is applicable to all sorts of discourses. I have to say it - I think Nagarjuna was wrong on this.
Other than this, I am in broad agreement with your position, even if I think one’s usage of the term “object” would not necessarily entail Hard Realism.
As for -
what is Bhante’s view on this relation? Is it -
- B comes to be only if A exists; or
- Whenever A exists, B must come to be.
If this relationship issue is irrelevant here, I hope it can be moved elsewhere for a proper ventilation.