Semantics or not..Dharmakaya, Eternalism and the Self of Advaita

[Stefos]

Howdy y'all,

So...........I have been contemplating buying a VERY good version of Nagarjuna's seminal text on Sunya and the middle way.
(ANY of your suggestions would help )

As I thought about this, I contemplated how in Buddhadharma, Eternalism is eschewed and condemned.

I believe that there is a problem however with my understanding of Sunya and Clarity and the Dharmakaya.

Can someone help me understand that if Cause and Effect or Karma & its Phala exist, Why is Sunya declared by Nagarjuna to be the only real thing or substratum to everything?

In other words, Ontologically put, Emptiness IS Eternalism according to Acharya/Mahasiddha Nagarjuna.

Is my understanding correct?

According to what Ramana Maharshi states, Mahasunya IS the Self, that along with Awareness and Bliss.

I would appreciate your insights

Thank you & Sarva Mangalam,
Stefos.......................TLD (The Lone Dzogchenpa)

[Bakmoon]

Can someone help me understand that if Cause and Effect or Karma & its Phala exist, Why is Sunya declared by Nagarjuna to be the only real thing or substratum to everything?

In other words, Ontologically put, Emptiness IS Eternalism according to Acharya/Mahasiddha Nagarjuna.

Is my understanding correct?

According to what Ramana Maharshi states, Mahasunya IS the Self, that along with Awareness and Bliss.

I would appreciate your insights

Thank you & Sarva Mangalam,
Stefos.......................TLD (The Lone Dzogchenpa)

Nagarjuna doesn't teach that emptiness is a real entity or substratum. Rather, emptiness is the fact that there isn't a substratum.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Is my understanding correct?

No.

Why is Sunya declared by Nagarjuna to be the only real thing or substratum to everything?

He doesn't, at least not the Nagarjuna you're talking about. In Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka there is no substratum.

There is a (presumably) different Nagarjuna that wrote "Dharmadhatustava" a.k.a "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" which is closer to what you're talking about. Maybe that's why you're getting confused about his position.

Fast forward to Tibet and there are some authors like Dolpopa that have a view they call "empty-of-other" which is Advaita-like. That view is an interpretation of the Buddha Nature teachings from Asanga and Vasabhandu. Although the Buddha Nature teachings are widely accepted, that particular interpretation of them is much more controversial. Or perhaps it would be better if I said "those interpretations". There is a wide variety of "empty-of-other" interpretations. So don't think that everybody signs off on it, or that the matter can even be possibly universally agreed upon.

But again, the main Nagarjuna is much earlier and Indian he isn't one of those authors.

[Johnny Dangerous]

It's a non-affirming negation, in other words, the analysis is meant ro exhaust reasoning, not make ontological claims.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

It's a non-affirming negation, in other words, the analysis is meant ro exhaust reasoning, not make ontological claims.

[Bakmoon]

So...........I have been contemplating buying a VERY good version of Nagarjuna's seminal text on Sunya and the middle way.
(ANY of your suggestions would help )

By the way what book are you getting? I've read several books on Nagarjuna's MMK so I might be able to weigh in.

[krodha]

As the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra states:

• Outside of the saṃskṛtas [conditioned dharmas], there are no asaṃskṛta [unconditioned dharmas], and the true nature [bhūtalakṣaṇa] of the saṃskṛta is exactly asaṃskṛta. The saṃskṛtas being empty, etc. the asaṃskṛtas themselves are also empty, for the two things are not different. Besides, some people, hearing about the defects of the saṃskṛtadharmas, become attached [abhiniveśante] to the asaṃskṛtadharmas and, as a result of this attachment, develop fetters.

Going on to say that the person who rejects the saṃskṛtas [conditioned] is attached to the asaṃskṛtas [unconditioned] by attributing to them the characteristics of non-production [anutpāda], and by the very fact of this attachment those asaṃskṛtas are immediately transformed into saṃskṛtas. Which, as I have pointed out before; is equivalent to the act of turning dharmatā (the emptiness of a given entity) into a dharmin by considering it to be a separate, existent, unconditioned, free-standing nature.

It should instead be understood that the very non-arising of conditioned dharmas [saṃskṛtadharmas] is the unconditioned [saṃskṛta] dharmatā. It is an epistemic realization which dispels ignorance by severing the causes and conditions for invalid cognition... not an ontological X that exists on its own (that is what Vedanta teaches).

[krodha]

There is a (presumably) different Nagarjuna that wrote "Dharmadhatustava" a.k.a "In Praise of Dharmadhatu" which is closer to what you're talking about.

Although not really, at all.

Fast forward to Tibet and there are some authors like Dolpopa that have a view they call "empty-of-other" which is Advaita-like.

Again, not really, even according to Dolbupa himself. It's really a stretch even to say it is "Advaita-like."

[Stefos]

So...........I have been contemplating buying a VERY good version of Nagarjuna's seminal text on Sunya and the middle way.
(ANY of your suggestions would help )

By the way what book are you getting? I've read several books on Nagarjuna's MMK so I might be able to weigh in.

Hi,

I wanted to buy the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way).

This is/was his work on Sunya.

Please help me get a translation that is literal but comprehendable and comprehensive.

Thanks sir/ma'am,
Stefos................TLD (The Lone Dzogchenpa)

[Stefos]

It's a non-affirming negation, in other words, the analysis is meant ro exhaust reasoning, not make ontological claims.

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for posting, I appreciate you.

I have questions however:

Exhausting reason makes sense only in the context of a greater view, as such, sir.

In Dzogchen, we have Emptiness (Sunya), Clarity (Cognitive Clarity) and Bliss.

In Advaita, you have MahaSunya (According to the Sri Devikalottara actually which Ramana Maharshi quoted from), Awareness (Cognitive Clarity) and Bliss. As Ramana Maharshi stated paraphrasingly "Moksha only happens when one is aware, not in a state of unawareness."

A prior poster stated that Emptiness proves there is no substratum.........This doesn't make sense to me.

IF everything is Empty, Then Emptiness IS the substratum of everything and IS Eternal.
We also have Cognitive Clarity and the Bliss aspect of the state of the Dharmakaya.
These 3 are inseparable.

Nothing comes out of nothing..............In the Dzogchen teachings, The Dharmakaya manifested Sound, Light and Rays and then the 5 elements "hardened" per se forming the world.

Therefore How can Buddhadharma not teach Eternalism?

Thank you and E MA HO...indeed
Stefos

[krodha]

A prior poster stated that Emptiness proves there is no substratum.........This doesn't make sense to me.

IF everything is Empty, Then Emptiness IS the substratum of everything and IS Eternal.

Ask yourself, how can phenomena that never originated in the first place have a substratum?

[Malcolm]

Why is Sunya declared by Nagarjuna to be the only real thing or substratum to everything?

Nāgārajuna nowhere states that emptiness is the only real thing. In fact he never states that emptiness is a substratum at all.

[Stefos]

Why is Sunya declared by Nagarjuna to be the only real thing or substratum to everything?

Nāgārajuna nowhere states that emptiness is the only real thing. In fact he never states that emptiness is a substratum at all.

By "substratum" I mean the original ground, which is the Dharmakaya qualified by Emptiness, Clarity & Bliss.

So, yes, there is a substratum according to that definition I believe sir.

Stefos.............TLD (The Lone Dzogchenpa)

Scratchin' AND Survivin'.........Hangin' in a chow line GOOD TIIIIMES

[krodha]

By "substratum" I mean the original ground, which is the Dharmakaya qualified by Emptiness, Clarity & Bliss.

So, yes, there is a substratum according to that definition I believe sir.

There is no such definition.

You seem to be conflating the essence, nature and compassion of the so-called "basis", with the inseparability of emptiness and clarity which also defines said nature.

"Bliss" is not part of the equation. And none of these principles imply, suggest nor denote a "substratum" of any kind.

[Malcolm]

Why is Sunya declared by Nagarjuna to be the only real thing or substratum to everything?

Nāgārajuna nowhere states that emptiness is the only real thing. In fact he never states that emptiness is a substratum at all.

By "substratum" I mean the original ground, which is the Dharmakaya qualified by Emptiness, Clarity & Bliss.

So, yes, there is a substratum according to that definition I believe sir.

One, you are now conflating Nāgārjuna's point of view, who never heard of "Dzogchen," with Dzogchen teachings.

With respect to the latter, the term "basis" refers to something one has not realized. It does not refer to an entity as such. The thog ma gzhi, the original basis, the mind-essence, is the basis of the recognition or nonrecognition of the nature of one's consciousness. If one reifies this as a substratum, one winds up in Advaita land.

[Bakmoon]

So...........I have been contemplating buying a VERY good version of Nagarjuna's seminal text on Sunya and the middle way.
(ANY of your suggestions would help )

By the way what book are you getting? I've read several books on Nagarjuna's MMK so I might be able to weigh in.

Hi,

I wanted to buy the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way).

This is/was his work on Sunya.

Please help me get a translation that is literal but comprehendable and comprehensive.

Thanks sir/ma'am,
Stefos................TLD (The Lone Dzogchenpa)

I recommend Mabja Jangchub Tsondru's commentary The Ornament of Reason

IF everything is Empty, Then Emptiness IS the substratum of everything and IS Eternal.
We also have Cognitive Clarity and the Bliss aspect of the state of the Dharmakaya.
These 3 are inseparable.

How does that follow? Emptiness is not a 'thing' that makes up the world around us. Emptiness is just the fact that everything is free from the four extremes of existence, nonexistence, both, and neither.

[Stefos]

Nāgārajuna nowhere states that emptiness is the only real thing. In fact he never states that emptiness is a substratum at all.

By "substratum" I mean the original ground, which is the Dharmakaya qualified by Emptiness, Clarity & Bliss.

So, yes, there is a substratum according to that definition I believe sir.

One, you are now conflating Nāgārjuna's point of view, who never heard of "Dzogchen," with Dzogchen teachings.

With respect to the latter, the term "basis" refers to something one has not realized. It does not refer to an entity as such. The thog ma gzhi, the original basis, the mind-essence, is the basis of the recognition or nonrecognition of the nature of one's consciousness. If one reifies this as a substratum, one winds up in Advaita land.

Hello Malcolm,

Thanks for your contribution here.

Nagarjuna, was a Mahasiddha, right?

Being a Mahasiddha, the term "Mahamudra" or "Dzogchen" essentially points to and describes the state of all beings,.
THIS is what Sri Nagarjuna had attained...........Fine, he didn't know Dzogchen.

By "recognition or non-recognition of the nature of one's consciousness" do you mean dependent upon if one has received any Introduction, per
se as understood by Dzogchen?

So again to clariy, For me there IS a substratum: Emptiness, Clarity and Bliss

Is this what Sri Nagarjuna taught?

Would reading the above mentioned book: Ornament Of Reason: The Great Commentary To Nagarjuna's Root Of The Middle Way
assist me in understanding the view of emptiness in terms of the Dharmakaya?

Thanks again,
Stefos.....................TLD

[krodha]

Nagarjuna, was a Mahasiddha, right?

There was more than one Nāgārjuna. There is the Siddha Nāgārjuna and Ārya Nāgārjuna. The latter is the one referenced by Malcolm. Ārya Nāgārjuna would not have encountered Dzogchen teachings.

For me there IS a substratum: Emptiness, Clarity and Bliss

Again BLISS IS NOT PART OF THE EQUATION.

In the scheme you are referencing there is emptiness [stong pa nyid], clarity [gsal ba] and their inseparability [dbyer med]. The trio being stong gsal dbyer med.

Emptiness means a substratum is impossible. But you don't seem like you want to listen.

Is this what Sri Nagarjuna taught?

Never.

[Malcolm]

So again to clariy, For me there IS a substratum: Emptiness, Clarity and Bliss

Is this what Sri Nagarjuna taught?

You are confusing three experiences that cause deviation: bliss, clarity, and emptiness (nonconceptuality) with the basis: essence, nature, and compassion.

Here, emptiness means being in a state free of thoughts. But it is not the emptiness spoken of by Nāgārjuna.

As mentioned before, there were several Nāgārjunas. The first was the founder of the Madhyamaka school. He did not assert that emptiness was a substratum.

Ramana Maharshi is completely irrelevant here.

M

[Adamantine]

Stefos, these are common misunderstandings. You're not alone.
Just as in the English language, the same word may have multiple definitions that are quite different, depending on context: so in the long elaborate history of Buddhadharma with it's mutual influences on other Indian systems you'll find many of the same words with varying definitions. As Malcolm points out, even within strict Buddhist contexts the same word may have a variable definition. This is why it's very important to study closely with a qualified Guru and seek clarification about any confusion rather than just relying on textual study alone. It'd be good to be open to many of the good replies you've had here and entertain the idea that you are conflating things based on misunderstanding words and context. Once you do read the MMK you'll probably understand better. Jay Garfield has a good translation with footnotes that relate some of the ideas to more familiar Western philosophical systems for helpful contrast.