06-22-2010, 12:01 AM
lex icon wrote: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?
Lex,
First off, great posts you wrote. Agree with all, but this part I do want to mention...
I do think Nagarjuna does acknowledge a being of sorts. As stated in the Fundamental text:
Nagarjuna's view is that (contrary to
nihilism) there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the
world that appears before us (the phenomenal world), but that (contrary
to essentialism) all such phenomenal entities are impermanent,
continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words,
"empty" (shunya) of essence."
Selves and things that interact. Actions and responses of interdependent phenomena. Empty of essence but still selves. Still things.
All this means to me is, there is still a life to be lived, by a self who lives it. But in the most inexplicable way such a self can still understand it has no essence while remaining a self. A self who sleeps, a self who awakes, a self who knows other selves, a self who gets sick from a cold, a self who is happy in a moment of warmth of friendship, etc.
Self is only a hindrance when there is perceived essence of self and others. In such a case, all the above and much more becomes completely complicated by the idea of competing with others selves due to a sense of absolute individuality (separation) that is just not there. So once it's experienced this is not so, the sense of "being" changes and yet it goes on just as before. Just like the quote about the mountain.
before mountains was just mountains
then they became non-mountain
now mountain is mountains
So being I would describe as: I look with my eyes and see, I raise my arms and I see my arms being raised, I use my voice and I hear my voice, you use your voice and I hear your voice. Being.
The fact that this "I" is not anywhere to be found does not end phenomenal existence as described.
Lex,
First off, great posts you wrote. Agree with all, but this part I do want to mention...
I do think Nagarjuna does acknowledge a being of sorts. As stated in the Fundamental text:
Nagarjuna's view is that (contrary to
nihilism) there does exist a world of selves and things, namely, the
world that appears before us (the phenomenal world), but that (contrary
to essentialism) all such phenomenal entities are impermanent,
continually changing, interdependent, insubstantial — in other words,
"empty" (shunya) of essence."
Selves and things that interact. Actions and responses of interdependent phenomena. Empty of essence but still selves. Still things.
All this means to me is, there is still a life to be lived, by a self who lives it. But in the most inexplicable way such a self can still understand it has no essence while remaining a self. A self who sleeps, a self who awakes, a self who knows other selves, a self who gets sick from a cold, a self who is happy in a moment of warmth of friendship, etc.
Self is only a hindrance when there is perceived essence of self and others. In such a case, all the above and much more becomes completely complicated by the idea of competing with others selves due to a sense of absolute individuality (separation) that is just not there. So once it's experienced this is not so, the sense of "being" changes and yet it goes on just as before. Just like the quote about the mountain.
before mountains was just mountains
then they became non-mountain
now mountain is mountains
So being I would describe as: I look with my eyes and see, I raise my arms and I see my arms being raised, I use my voice and I hear my voice, you use your voice and I hear your voice. Being.
The fact that this "I" is not anywhere to be found does not end phenomenal existence as described.