06-22-2010, 12:01 AM
What? I tried reading this and other things Nagarjuna supposedly said, and I wondered if it wasn't a joke. I have no idea what he's talking about and I certainly do not understand anything he says. Gonzo
Gonzo, thank you for this honesty!
What Nagarjuna is presenting is a way of speaking that does not solely rely upon the 4 assertions for its expression. It undermines the false assumptions of the assertions. What is difficult at first is that it sometimes appears in one breath that he is agreeing with an assertion but upon closer examination he is not. Then he employs double negatives. Its like mental jujitsui. We find ourselves always trying to interpret what he saying according to one or more of the 4 assertions. But what he is speaking of cannot not be classified that way. He is negating or emptying the assertions of their deluding influence. He is unraveling existence itself.
Sounds like my Philosophy class...throw enough words at something and you sound profound/smart/nagual-like Snowblind
Snowblind, well that is one way of dismissing it, so as not to engage.
Most of us have never really questioned existence and how we consider ourselves to be part of it.
We do not see how we are caught up in existence and do not see how it APPEARS to be occurring or as Nagarjuna says, “happening”.
I'm satisfied with these notions. Whether or not dualism is the "right" way to view existence, or non-dualism is the "right" way to view existence really is of no consequence. It's interesting to discuss, to a point. Gonzo
But what is dualism? How does it operate and can it cease as Nagarjuna is suggesting. You see we throw around these words we have garnered from the East and then think we know what they mean. Why is it only interesting to a point? Why is it difficult to understand Nagarjuna?
One of the things I enjoy reading Nagarjuna is that it is not some “spiritual” gobblygoop. It is plain “English” (translated). What gets interesting is when reading his words how difficult it is to understand where he is coming from. Now one could chalk that off to just trying to sound profound and intellectual as Snowblind appears to have done or just watch the gyrations your own mind goes through as you wrestle with what is really very simple words. We don’t like not “knowing” where he is coming from.
When we read “spiritual” stuff from any of the spiritual traditions we can read them quite easily and accommodate their ideas even if they are very profound and even foreign to us. That is because we are agreeing or disagreeing with assertions. Even when we totally disagree with some spiritual idea presented by a tradition it does not really disturb us because it leaves consciousness and perceptions, causes and conditions, intact.
Being. Now there is a word we think we are very familiar with and we think being is just about incontestable. Yet Nagarjuna contests such an assumption. Now we can just dismiss him or try and understand where he is coming from. What we encounter along the way is the burden of our assumptions. Which Nagarjuna will throw in our face. Why do we think there is any such thing as “being”. If you are the one asserting, either directly or indirectly, with your use of language that there is such a thing then you will find that Nagarjuna is more than willing to explore the notion with you (if you dare). If you have nothing to defend you will enjoy the challenge and find it stimulating to get to the root of how theses assumptions impact us. If you are making an assertion that there is such a thing as “being” then show the accounting etc. How do you know this?
Once it is apparent how the four assertions frame existence itself we can begin dismantling the whole edifice. I found it helpful to really take a look at what I think I know. Now I am a very intellectual sort well read etc but actually what I actually know is very little. I do not say this as a false humility, which is popular with some. I found it very liberating, engaging Nagarjuna. I was forced to reassess and it was such a relief to let it all go....ALL THE STUFF I DON”T KNOW!!!! I don’t have to defend it any more I let it go like vapor. lol.
We have falsely attributed realness and being to ourselves and the things/objects that appear in our presence. What we haven’t noticed is the devastating impact of this carelessness. Grasping at appearances as if they had inherent essence of their own can cease completely! It is utterly delusional.
Gonzo, thank you for this honesty!
What Nagarjuna is presenting is a way of speaking that does not solely rely upon the 4 assertions for its expression. It undermines the false assumptions of the assertions. What is difficult at first is that it sometimes appears in one breath that he is agreeing with an assertion but upon closer examination he is not. Then he employs double negatives. Its like mental jujitsui. We find ourselves always trying to interpret what he saying according to one or more of the 4 assertions. But what he is speaking of cannot not be classified that way. He is negating or emptying the assertions of their deluding influence. He is unraveling existence itself.
Sounds like my Philosophy class...throw enough words at something and you sound profound/smart/nagual-like Snowblind
Snowblind, well that is one way of dismissing it, so as not to engage.
Most of us have never really questioned existence and how we consider ourselves to be part of it.
We do not see how we are caught up in existence and do not see how it APPEARS to be occurring or as Nagarjuna says, “happening”.
I'm satisfied with these notions. Whether or not dualism is the "right" way to view existence, or non-dualism is the "right" way to view existence really is of no consequence. It's interesting to discuss, to a point. Gonzo
But what is dualism? How does it operate and can it cease as Nagarjuna is suggesting. You see we throw around these words we have garnered from the East and then think we know what they mean. Why is it only interesting to a point? Why is it difficult to understand Nagarjuna?
One of the things I enjoy reading Nagarjuna is that it is not some “spiritual” gobblygoop. It is plain “English” (translated). What gets interesting is when reading his words how difficult it is to understand where he is coming from. Now one could chalk that off to just trying to sound profound and intellectual as Snowblind appears to have done or just watch the gyrations your own mind goes through as you wrestle with what is really very simple words. We don’t like not “knowing” where he is coming from.
When we read “spiritual” stuff from any of the spiritual traditions we can read them quite easily and accommodate their ideas even if they are very profound and even foreign to us. That is because we are agreeing or disagreeing with assertions. Even when we totally disagree with some spiritual idea presented by a tradition it does not really disturb us because it leaves consciousness and perceptions, causes and conditions, intact.
Being. Now there is a word we think we are very familiar with and we think being is just about incontestable. Yet Nagarjuna contests such an assumption. Now we can just dismiss him or try and understand where he is coming from. What we encounter along the way is the burden of our assumptions. Which Nagarjuna will throw in our face. Why do we think there is any such thing as “being”. If you are the one asserting, either directly or indirectly, with your use of language that there is such a thing then you will find that Nagarjuna is more than willing to explore the notion with you (if you dare). If you have nothing to defend you will enjoy the challenge and find it stimulating to get to the root of how theses assumptions impact us. If you are making an assertion that there is such a thing as “being” then show the accounting etc. How do you know this?
Once it is apparent how the four assertions frame existence itself we can begin dismantling the whole edifice. I found it helpful to really take a look at what I think I know. Now I am a very intellectual sort well read etc but actually what I actually know is very little. I do not say this as a false humility, which is popular with some. I found it very liberating, engaging Nagarjuna. I was forced to reassess and it was such a relief to let it all go....ALL THE STUFF I DON”T KNOW!!!! I don’t have to defend it any more I let it go like vapor. lol.
We have falsely attributed realness and being to ourselves and the things/objects that appear in our presence. What we haven’t noticed is the devastating impact of this carelessness. Grasping at appearances as if they had inherent essence of their own can cease completely! It is utterly delusional.