Greg/ Nagarjunas Madhyamika = Advaita?

[Guest guest]

 

Magne Aga [magneaga]

Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:12 PM

Nagarjunas Madhyamika = Advaita?

 

 

At the moment, while studying Nagarjunas "Mulamadhyamika Karika" (or

rather - making it a tool for an analytic meditation in order to clean the

mind for dualistic *belief systems*), I saw Harsas's definition on Advaita

on his home page:

 

"Advaita is a Sanskrit term and means "not two". It refers to the

philosophy of nondualism. Usually you will see the term Advaita Vedanta,

where Advaita serves as an adjective for Vedanta (Nondual Vedanta). Dvaita

is the Sanskrit term that refers to Dualism."

 

I know how hinduists and buddhisms became two separate religions; however,

doesn't Nagarjunas root text fit in the above definifition?

 

Any input?

 

Nice to hear from you Magne Aga and hope all is well in Norway from where

you often send your blessings. Greg and Luan come to mind as the best known

experts and scholars and the ones with the most profound knowledge about

Buddhism (although there are may be many others here as well - Gloria maybe)

who can perhaps address your question.

 

Love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha and Magne Aga,

 

Norway! Cool!

 

About this list. There are many approaches to non-dualism. The term

became popularized mostly from the teachings of advaita-vedanta, however,

through its meaning of "not-two". The other non-dual approaches (Sufism,

Kabbala, Buddhist paths, Rosicrucianism and Christian mysticism, some forms

of shamanism, scientific approaches) don't really have 'non-dualism' in

their titles like advaita does.

 

Harsha can say more definitively than I, but even though the

list-description might have been phrased in terms of advaita vedanta I

think it is open to all non-dual approaches. You are welcome to talk about

Nagarjuna and such approaches here. I'll certainly talk to you!!

 

Advaita and Madhyamika.... Both non-dual, don't approach it the same way.

A somewhat inaccurate but pithy characterization -- Nagarjuna's non-dualism

is a "middle-way" path. Middle way between what? A middle way that

avoids the extremes of true inherent existence on one hand, and utter

void-non-existence on the other hand. Based on the Buddhist notions of the

4 Noble Truths and dependent arising of phenomena, Nagarjuna systematized

the teachings of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras (e.g., the Heart Sutra).

His great Karika gives many reasonings to show how claims and conceptions

of inherent existence and of utter non-existence make no sense. Advaita's

non-dualism is a different approach. It is a way of understanding the

non-difference of any true dualities anywhere, hot/cold, inside/outside,

here/there, red/not-red, etc. Of all these dualities, the most pernicious

are the dualities between between subject and object, "I" and "thou," seer

and seen. Advaita is a philosophy and a path that cultivates the intuitive

understanding of the non-difference between any of these pairs.

 

They are both very cool, and different enough so that neither one can

really be reduced to the other.

 

Love,

 

--Greg

 

At 10:01 AM 12/8/00 -0500, Harsha \(Dr. Harsh K. Luthar\) wrote:

>>>>

 

Magne Aga [magneaga]

Thursday, December 07, 2000 11:12 PM

Nagarjunas Madhyamika = Advaita?

 

 

At the moment, while studying Nagarjunas "Mulamadhyamika Karika" (or

rather - making it a tool for an analytic meditation in order to clean the

mind for dualistic *belief systems*), I saw Harsas's definition on Advaita

on his home page:

 

"Advaita is a Sanskrit term and means "not two". It refers to the

philosophy of nondualism. Usually you will see the term Advaita Vedanta,

where Advaita serves as an adjective for Vedanta (Nondual Vedanta). Dvaita

is the Sanskrit term that refers to Dualism."

 

I know how hinduists and buddhisms became two separate religions; however,

doesn't Nagarjunas root text fit in the above definifition?

 

Any input?

 

Nice to hear from you Magne Aga and hope all is well in Norway from where

you often send your blessings. Greg and Luan come to mind as the best known

experts and scholars and the ones with the most profound knowledge about

Buddhism (although there are may be many others here as well - Gloria maybe)

who can perhaps address your question.

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

eGroups Sponsor

<http://rd./M=102308.1038796.2731130.908943/D=egroupmail/S=17000609

55:N/A=466330/?http://www.>Click Here!

 

<//>/subs

cribe/

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of

Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is

Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality

of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge,

spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to

a.

 

To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

between digest and normal mode.

 

 

 

 

<<<<

[Guest guest]

* Gregory Good on Friday, December 08,2000 4:59 PM:

>Advaita and Madhyamika.... Both non-dual, don't approach it the same way.

>A somewhat inaccurate but pithy characterization -- Nagarjuna's non-dualism

>is a "middle-way" path. Middle way between what? A middle way that

>avoids the extremes of true inherent existence on one hand, and utter

>void-non-existence on the other hand. Based on the Buddhist notions of the

>4 Noble Truths and dependent arising of phenomena, Nagarjuna systematized

>the teachings of the Perfection of Wisdom sutras (e.g., the Heart Sutra).

>His great Karika gives many reasonings to show how claims and conceptions

>of inherent existence and of utter non-existence make no sense. Advaita's

>non-dualism is a different approach. It is a way of understanding the

>non-difference of any true dualities anywhere, hot/cold, inside/outside,

>here/there, red/not-red, etc. Of all these dualities, the most pernicious

>are the dualities between between subject and object, "I" and "thou," seer

>and seen. Advaita is a philosophy and a path that cultivates the intuitive

>understanding of the non-difference between any of these pairs.

>

>They are both very cool, and different enough so that neither one can

>really be reduced to the other.

 

Nagarjuna lived in a time (about 200 AD), when different schools were more

engaged in dogmas than offering a way to liberation from the evil sircle of

samsara. The Sarvâstivadins ("Everything is real") claimed that everything,

in the future, the present and the past was real. Since we actually can

think about them and get in touch with them with our mind, they necessarily

have to exist. Elements which binds us, and those capable of beeing binded

(attached to the objects) exists in paralell, but there's no permanent ego.

Sautrântika considered the karmic factors of samsarâ as temporarily and

without substance. They disappear in the present form as soon as they have

been manifested, just to appear in a new aggregate; but they never repeat

themselves. The transitions from one state to another is a continual

movement of physical and mental states and their modifications, where each

series appears independent of each other, even though they correspond to the

initial impuls. Each thought and feeling becomes subliminaly impregnated in

our subconscious half, where they generate new correlated situations.

 

Very well. But such discussions became belief systems. Belief systems became

more important than liberation. Through an stringent logical arguing, his

"four-corned logic", he cut into pieces the one holy cow after the other. He

attacked our fundamental views, our unspoken, subconscious belifsystems and

axioms, that which we take for granted, and reduced them into nothing

through reductio ad absurdum.

 

In chapter 2, "An investigation of standstill and movement" (gatagata

pariksha), he challenge our fundamental views about movement.

 

Mystics of all agendas agrees that there is neither any future nor past -

only an eternal NOW. Very well.

 

"There is no movement in a finished movement. Neither is there any movement

in a movement which haven't started yet. Thus, separated from any past and

future movement, there's impossible to locate any movement whatsoever."

(2.1)

 

"Since the actual movement cannot be found by refering to any past or any

future movement, then the movement must exist in the now. Only now is

movement possible" (2.2)

 

"But how can that which seems to be movement in that which moves now eksist,

since no-movement in the present movement seems impossible?" (2.3)

 

"The assumption that the activity of movement exists in a sequence of

present movements, implies a present movement without movement. Only to the

degree that something moves where movement exists, kan real movement exist."

(2.4)

 

etc. etc. Movement implies a future and a past, and if they don't exist -

how is movement possible? If movement doesn't exist, then standstill is

impossible because movement only can exist relative to standstill. And

futher - movement implies that "something" moves. They are interrelated. And

without movement, these "something" which moves, doesn't exist either!

 

His arguments seems to eliminate our *pink elephants* by showing that they

are contradictions - without offering any new viewpoints as a substitute.

And he shows the dilemmas in the language, that our language implies an

inherent *dualism* which doesn't exist in reality.

 

When reading and meditating on his analysis in 27 chapters, in his

Mulamadhyamika Karika, our fundamental assumptions becomes splintered into

nothing. He expose an inherent dualism in our language and ideas. "A" can

not exist without "Not A", according to our linear thinking process. But if

these dualism is an illusion, both viewpoints disappears.

 

There's a lot of humor here, since the Madhyamikas called themselves the

*advocaters of emptiness*. Imagine the following scenario: I became invited

to Tibet in order to preach the utter and final truth. Newspapers from all

over the world, together with CNN, covered the story, with me talking to an

audience full of expectations. And my message to the audience was: "I have

nothing to teach you, whatsoever. Everything I say is bullshit. I do not

have any dogmas, any doctrines to offer - execept meaningless nonsense. I am

the greatest idiot in history............................." - whereafter

reactions of rage from the audiance full of expectations becomes followed by

putting me into a psychiatric clinic.

 

The "4 General States" (samyana-lakshana) which Prajna is divided into,

corresponds to the four "blades" of our root chakra. In other words, to be

really GROUNDED, we must have both feets implanted and anchored in NOTHING.

In order to unfold the root chakra, together with the 8-bladed heart chakra,

and making a new center of the 101 nadis of the aura in the heart center, we

have to become anchored in the utter stuff and nonsense, as the greatest

fool and idiot in the universe..........

 

This is not an attempt to be sacreligious or blasphemous; it's just the

logical consequence of the elimination of all dualism in mind - that is, by

proclaiming that since you have no dogmas nor teachings to offer, your point

of view is ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

 

Sometimes it's a human right to discover the incoherenses in our static

belief systems and precious held viewpoints and participate in the *chickens

homecoming*:

 

Klukk. klukk.

 

Blessings from Norway