07-26-2010, 12:06 AM
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh? Gonzo.
When we say some Thing has an inherent separate individual essence, we have reasons for believing this to be so, whether we are conscious of them or not. What is being negated are those reasons, and they are reasons, and Nagarjuna is using reason to do so.
If reality is non-conceptual, then the reasons, the conceptual overlay must be blown away, if we are to come upon reality directly.
It is said in Buddhism that all have Buddha nature. We all have "seen" this many many many times, however we do no recognize it. This is why it usually takes an introduction.
Now if that's true then the question arises why do we not recognize our own nature?
When we say some Thing has an inherent separate individual essence, we have reasons for believing this to be so, whether we are conscious of them or not. What is being negated are those reasons, and they are reasons, and Nagarjuna is using reason to do so.
If reality is non-conceptual, then the reasons, the conceptual overlay must be blown away, if we are to come upon reality directly.
It is said in Buddhism that all have Buddha nature. We all have "seen" this many many many times, however we do no recognize it. This is why it usually takes an introduction.
Now if that's true then the question arises why do we not recognize our own nature?