Nāgārjuna

Discussion in 'Buddhism' started by Snoopy, Jun 3, 2008.

  1. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,291
    Likes Received:
    22
    Believers believe in buddhas
    Who vanish in nirvana.
    Don’t imagine empty buddhas
    Vanishing or not.

    -[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Nāgārjuna.


    s.
     
  2. earl

    earl ?

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    18
    Good to see you back Snoopy. earl
     
  3. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,291
    Likes Received:
    22
    :)..................................

    s.
     
  4. Qi1

    Qi1 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a profound notion. We are always so focused on the material, here is the origin of the focus on the non-material.


    The idea of "no-self" is very humbling, indeed.

    The idea of "self-nature" is very intriguing. It could mean that one needs to define their self through meditation and practice.


    This idea could relate to the timelessness of the universe or its temporary nature.

    Early ideas of relativism came from here.


    Bringing clarity is an important objective.
     
  5. Nicholas Weeks

    Nicholas Weeks Bodhicitta

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    31
  6. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
  7. Snoopy

    Snoopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,291
    Likes Received:
    22
    I did finally get this and excellent it is too!

    Palms together, Derek.
     
  8. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Having trouble understanding the inside joke with the two truths from the link in post #26. Here is a refrain:
    1. No thing anywhere is ever born from itself,
    2. from something else,
    3. from both
    4. or without a cause.
    I suppose you think about each statement and try to comparitorate them, but do you first look at each of the four to confirm that it is true in some way? 1 and 2 partly are opposites, and 4 is the opposite of 3. I don't see how to compare 3 against 1 without 2 or in what way 1 should be related to 4.

    Let us say that instead of 'Nothing' you substitute in the word 'Question'. "No question is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." That could be an entirely true statement with no conflict. But put in the word 'Pencil' and you get "No pencil is ever born from itself, from something else, from both or without a cause." Now to make 1 or 2 false you must exclude the pencil from its own past, while to make 3 false you must include the past and assume 1 and 2 are true, and to make 4 true or false you simply do or do not care to have a pencil.

    Finally if you put in 'Nothing' for 'Nothing' then you get 1. false, 2. false, 3. false and 4. false.
     
  9. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
    http://www.interfaith.org/forum/buddhist-philosophy-719.html
     
  10. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
    lol, try plugging "Truth" and "Falsehood" in there. :p

    {I'm just starting on this treatise from Naagaarjuna myself, so we can be confused together.}
     

Share This Page