Nagarjuna: "Founder " of Mahayana Buddhism

[hrantnano]

as a physicist...I say this is the best I have seen on youtube..no competition !!!!!

million thanx ....

[holekyo]

or maybe you wanna invite me on a party like mahayana buddhists and when I will test them eating only olives (metaphor) they will ask me if "they are not a people, if this is not good food" ... then I will see "last airbender" movie. listen. bow in front of my majesty, but bow from behind, and when your lips will be on right level make ancient KMA ritual. "he can't have family", so he escaped ... do not tell me what I can or can't, or I will show you what I really can. now bow and KMA

[123ravindra]

excellent work, very nice and beautiful

[buciorjakub]

awesome! but what was the name of the songs that were playing

[FrgFty]

Emptiness cannot exist without something to contrast it.

[naegling3]

La ilaha il Allah, Muhammad-ur-Rasul-Allah. suddenly I've become a muslims. praise to allah. سُبْحَانَ اللّهِ وَ بِحَمْدِهِ

[naegling3]

not self. not no self. the question of self does NOT HAVE a categorical self. this is the meaning of anatman/anatta. reconsider this interpretation of negation and read the heart sutra. the wu to the buddha nature question... What is the mind? The mind isn't 'is' anything. These questions don't get a yes/no answer because they're irrelevant to liberation/stilling/release.

[naegling3]

ham ham dilly cham cham

[sleeplessmind]

is this a precursor to nihilism?

[opensourcebuddhism]

@sleeplessmind Nagarjuna Sleepless, is not a nihilist at all. This is a great misunderstanding. He is all about the logic of infinitude that breaks down the subject/object illusion. He is entirely a Buddhist thinker, though even many Buddhists (the Theravadins mostly) share this misconception.

[Gieszkanne]

@opensourcebuddhism

To say emptiness itself is empty should be no concept?

[opensourcebuddhism]

@Gieszkanne Bingo Geiszkanne! "To say emptiness itslef is empty should be no concept" you put it well! Just remember: that statement is empty to and the state of complete conceptionlessness is the goal of nirvana...snuffing out the ego. You could say with science snuffing the left brains worries and letting out the right brain.

[Gieszkanne]

@opensourcebuddhism

Who is snuffing out what?! Butt-hism is intrinsically contradictory!

[attilaclark]

@sleeplessmind Buddhism is a refutation of Eternalism and Nihilism...That's why it is called the middle way.

[telltree]

@sleeplessmind Nagarjuna is walking on a logical and philosophical tightrope. Nihilists have fallen off the rope.

[23Henrich]

The Supreme Mantra:Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhisavvha

"Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond. Oh what an awakening! All Hail!"

Thank you for the video!

[opensourcebuddhism]

@23Henrich You are most welcome Henrich...glad you enjoyed this documentary on Nagarjuna...it remains one of my favorites.

[redzisan]

@23Henrich Haha it is truly awakening! It is truly awakening!



[wateraarde]

Mm.. wonderful! Now rest.

[cpvu1991]

What an excellent reminder!! tanks a lot

[prernamanchanda88]

cn u tell me where did u read dat buddha was african n nagarjuna is yet to come

[PunchinTheMunchkin]

A lot of people have some funny ideas about things. If you want to see proof that Sakyamuni discussed Sunyata emptiness from the original Theravadan standpoint, check out the book "Echoes From An Empty Sky" which uses only Hinayana (sorry to offend) standpoint to show the Buddha's doctrine of two truths... Nagarjuna has not dissed Theravada, he is explaining a higher view: karma and merit play a role in revealing the nature of mind, which is beyond merit and karma.

[NJNTNT08]

I do agree about Sunyata but the all what you have said are all empty, even silence itself is empty.

[GunKlappa]

this video is bullshit the real buddah was afrikan and nagarjuna is the future buddah and e has not come yet

[BlueM0nk]

It seems like he's bashing other forms of buddhism.

[buddhafollower]

osho

[DreamsofMajesty]

scribd (dot) com/nb812

[pingala10]

One question which bothers me everyday is concept of self in MahaParinirvana sutra, Where buddha says about a self existing after nirvana. A Self is closer to Madhyamika but it seems that it has attributes which seems paradoxical. I struggle with notion everyday, could some body throw some light....please

[Amirmourad]

@pingala10

Although one of the central teachings of Gautama as his skillful means was Anatman (no-self), there are times when he spoke of self. But he was using the word in a completely different context. "Self" is just an idea, and that word will mean whatsoever one wants it to mean. When Gautama Buddha had spoken of a "self", he was referring to the collective constitution of one's being, the personal and the impersonal together. At other times, he is referring to the emptiness of being.

[pingala10]

@Amirmourad This explanation is stranger than i thought, if Atman and Anatman don't exist, then nothing exists.... i think iam missing something here....???

[Amirmourad]

@pingala10

It is not that there is nothing in one's being which one may call one's true self,, everything in existence arises out of one and the same essential nature. It is simply that it is not something that can be understood through the limitations of our mental categories. To call it a "self" is to impose a restriction upon it. To call it no-self is also to impose a restriction upon it. Mind will try in a million different ways to try and force it into the boundaries of our knowledge.

[pingala10]

@Amirmourad I understand that language is protocol of experience, were two beings agree on a symbol for a perceived concept considering both beings aggregations(concepts by throught or sense perception) are same.

You are asserting that you need to be a buddha to know "what is SELF", so this might be elusive to normal beings like me.

[lflamon]

The teachings of the Buddha should be likened unto a raft. If the correct teachings of the Buddha must be abandoned, how much more incorrect teachings?

[Amirmourad]

@lflamon

There is no such thing as "correct" or "incorrect". Every situation can be seen from almost infinite number of angles and perspectives, all a finger pointing to the moon. But the very nature of the workings of the mind is such, that it wants to reduce everything to a certain one-sided understanding.

[koldsack]

No truer words were ever spoken. That's ultimate reality, it's something because we collectively believe it is something - that don't mean it's not there. Gold has no value unless we ALL agree it's valuable - it's still there in the earth, only it's "value" as perceived by those with an invested interest is different, but it exists as it truly is, well, Gold.

Behind the veil there is nothing, well until the Heisenberg principle kicks in.

Great video professor, my hats off to you.

[opensourcebuddhism]

@koldsack Thank you Kold, it is not my video of Nagarjuna though, but my student Paul Kacynski. He was an ardent Madhyamika - like me - and so I trusted him with the most valuable figure in the history of philosophy - after that great experientialist psychologist - Mr. B, the Buddha!

[2Durr]

@opensourcebuddhism

SHIVA DEMIGOD OF THE MEDITAION IN THE STATE OF NOTHINGNESS IS THE MATERIAL DESTROYER FROM MATERIAL 2 SPIRITUAL.

CHECK OU HAMSIYOGI

another fact the nazi use the Hindu swatstika clock wize wich is from spiritual 2 material.

where Our hindu Swatstika anti- clock wize because we go from Material 2 spiritual..

I give You diamonds Peace

[shaneho78]

What i gather is that Madyamika is essentially Nihilism while Yogacara is Idealism.

[Amirmourad]

@shaneho78

Yogacara is not idealism. When it has been said in yogacara that everything is of the nature of mind, what it means is that as far as one's own experience is concerned, one has never had an experience which is not of the mind. They do not mean that everything in existence is of the nature of mind, they know very well that whether your mind is there or not, the universe exists.

[187libra]

That would be why you are suffering from unconsciousness !

[187libra]

I didn't diss Nagarjuna, But you should be carful with that Mahayana idealism.

Its not the original buddha's teachings, Its a trap !

[opensourcebuddhism]

@187libra To call Mahayana Buddhism Idealism is simply inappropriate. This is a Western term predicated on a world of ideas, of divine mind beyond matter. There is no Buddhist school anywhere asserting this. The Yogacara school fully understands consciousness and interconnected with "other" meaning, it cannot remain alone and apart from "matter". Nagarjuna explicitly rejects even the facticity of consciousness. It's no trap...it is an untrap!

[BTNH24]

@187libra

Have you read the Mahayana Lankavatara Sutra? Buddha says reality is objective, while simultaneously being a product of mind. The thing is, is that it's NOT a product of OUR minds because he also teaches no-self. We don't have separate "minds" to begin with because everything is dependently arisen. So it's not idealistic in any sense.

[Amirmourad]

@187libra

"Its not the original buddha's teachings, Its a trap ! "

Unless you yourself were there to witness the man, one would have absolutely no idea of what Buddha's original teachings were. And even if you were there, the moment the message has even touched your ears, it has already become distorted with your interpretation. To understand a Buddha, you yourself must be a Buddha. There is no other way - this is something which arises not out of words, but out of a silent understanding.

[buddhafollower]

@187libra that is right.

[187libra]

Total B.S.



[opensourcebuddhism]

@187libra By that do you mean "Total Buddhist Studies"? You must be a brilliant person to so diss India's greatest thinker ever, the man whose thought affected almost all of Asia. Please, teach me more!

[opensourcebuddhism]

indeed kabask,

he is the final statement of no statement. the last laugh, the last word, end of the line, source code of the mahayana. hats off to nagarjuna!

[kabasak]

Nagarjuna's Teachings are Bare-Bone-No bells And Whistles Buddhism.Summing it all up,really.

[TheStormwater8888]

thank you very much...

[CosmicSisyphus]

I went to open-source Buddhism and downloaded this, but it wasn't complete either... I mean, I couldn't listen to the last part.

[pingala10]

There seems to be a lot of confusion about Nagarjuna's middle way and Sankara's Vedanta. Shankara's teachings is rooted in Upanishads and brahma sutras, where reality is brahman and illusion(maya) is the attribute of Brahman. In Case Middle Way there is nothing called real, even Nirvana is empty of it own meaning, It is beyond concepts and perceptions. It is this nature that Narjuna handles with Middle way where is neither accepts or rejects reality.

[shastrayana]

@pingala10 @pingala10 Advaitha and sunyatha are same though it seems different like nirvana & samsara. Sankara's brahman is nirguna , w/o any attributes, can there be anything w/o attributes ? what else can be other than sunyatha ? more over sankaras non orgination theory and nagarjunas depended orgination theory are also has to be same though looks different.

[pingala10]

@shastrayana They are not the same, Brahman is Real in Advaita and Maya is the nature of Brahman.There is a causal connection between unreal self and Brahman. Brahman is the substance devoid of gunas. In Sunyata Brahman is also unreal and without substance, it is just a view in sunyata. Dependend origination clings to voidness but not in non dependent origination. There is surprise in "Mahaparnivana sutra" where buddha talks about self after Nirvana just before his parinirvana,which is mystery.

[shastrayana]

@pingala10 , I am talking about nirguna brahman or attributeless brahman, If brahman is real then how come maya or illusion is its nature ?, I agree sankara advocates eternalisam but nagarjuna doesnt . but if we probe deep then non orgination ( not non dependent orgination) and sunyatha are synonymus, what is this dharmakaya in buddisam ? Mahaparinivana sutra also points to the same ...In short nirvikalpa samadhi and nirvana are same, Nirguna Brahman & Dharma kaya are same too ,Any objections ?

[pingala10]

@shastrayana It seems you did not understand buddhism well ! Samadhi is just a state of Chitta(mind) it includes all states like Savikalpa, Asamprajnata and Nirvikalpa. They are not permanent states. When Buddha achieved Parinibbana, he went through many levels of Samadhi states ultimately becoming Dharmakaya(truth). This is only truth which is universal ,This was same truth as Buddha Deepankara. This truth has no Substance, it just a Concept created by Prathaksha(Perception).

[shastrayana]

@pingala10 Your ideas on Samadhi is false. Samadhi is not a state of mind, the meaning of samadhi itself is death, death of the mind or chitta. Nirvana is not a concept , nor a perception concepts and perceptions are still in the mind, I could see you even struggling with words. It will be like two blind fellows discribing an elephant. so let it be in that way... Anyway thanks for your response.

[pingala10]

@shastrayana There is something called Yogic Perception in the Mind. Your Attempt to unify Brahman and Sunyata is beyond words!!!! After reading all your responses, it is clear there is pattern of baise against Buddhism in all your responses, as your name itself suggests. Live in your small world and spend your propoganda somewhere else.

Good Luck.

[shastrayana]

@pingala10 What is that some thing called yogic perception in Mind ? "samadhi ''?Ignorance what else to say. I am not against buddhisam nor for it. Yes I am for unity not for diversity wether it is samsara or sunyatha or samadhi or nirvana. diversity breads violence, truth is beyond philisophy and religion. Do bit more resaerch to see how adi sankara uprooted buddhisam from India, the reason the flase notion of diversity,then what is there in my name this vedio itself says names are mere labels

[pingala10]

This is really a nice description of sunyata, Nagarjuna's brave synthesis of thesis and antithesis is remarkable. He explains the middle way in just four statements (X,~X, (X & ~X), ~(X& ~X) ). The difference between Advaita and Middle way is where sankara ultimately clings to Absolute truth(brahman), Nagarjuna handles absolute truth with these four statements .

[viewpic1]

Namaste! Nice video

[GrandmasterTigerfist]

Which Buddhism is original from the Lord himself i mean what are Buddhists in India..

Therawada or mahayana??

I seek info on indian Buddhists but they look overshawowed by the Lama Tibetans..

[waynehyl]

GrandmasterTigerfist

If you wish to seek the Buddha's original teaching,

you can study Theravada school.

Mahayana school was found in 500 years after the death of Buddha.

[BodhiOshin]

I think the "Founder" of Mahayana Buddhism was Lord Buddha Himself.

[opensourcebuddhism]

I think Theravadins would disagree: Buddha founded no such strange doctrines. No, the origins likely lie with the early Mahasamghika sect, those darn liberals! You are right however, Mahayana Buddhism precedes Nagarjuna, just as the Reformation preceded Luther. Still, we regard Luther as the progenitor of it all due to his success. Likewise with Nagarjuna, at least for me personally.

james powell

[BodhiOshin]

opensourcebuddhism, I guess from historical perspective perhaps, Yes, Theravada followers might be right. Mahayana mainly talks about transference of Mahayana Sutras by Lord Buddha through DharamaKaya and Sambhoghakaya manifestations (from Trikaya Doctrine). Mahayana is more of, like, Esoteric and Mystical in nature in this regards whereas Theravada is more History Specific. However, Mahakashyapa, 1st Zen Patriarch, precedes Nagarjuna and "might" also qualify :)

[opensourcebuddhism]

well...we all want to claim "Buddha is on my side". Mahakasyapa is Zen's attempt to claim the Buddha, but honestly, apart from the flower sermon, can we really say that ancient Buddhist was a Mahayanin? I don't think so. It is a bit like Luther claiming Paul the Apostle. Paul would have NO idea what Luther was talking about. Maybe after a dialog Paul would agree, but how would we get that evidence? opinion is all it is. Buddha said: rely on experience, not me - that is my view too..

[BodhiOshin]

Its not about "claiming the buddha", cos then u miss the whole point. Its the essence of Buddha's teachings that is important. With the Luther example you gave, again such an example would be in line with "historical" perspective. History as a whole is not the point in Mahayana tradition. Essence is. Flower Sermon again, points towards the core of Zen teachings, which is to say, that Zen is not something seperate from Buddha's teachings. That's all I can say in you tube's 500 word limit :)

[opensourcebuddhism]

well,

i never said nagarjuna founded buddhism, but when the prajnaparamita speaks of "no skandhas" etc., it is a significant divergence from the original B's thought, no? that is why it is a different denomination. "no self of phenomena" in addition to his original "no self" is the advance in perspectives.

[BodhiOshin]

Prajñaparamita certainly appears contradictory to, say Noble Truths wrt Skandhas but the contradiction is as superficial as saying glass is half empty vs half full. E.g. in explaining Noble Truths, Buddha is talking to the common man. In, say, Prajñaparamita H?daya (Heart Sutra), Buddha is talking to Sariputra, who is already on the very verge of enlightenment. With Noble Truths, journey is just starting so Buddha has to talk at that level. But with Sariputra, the level is much advanced.

[opensourcebuddhism]

I disagree. I am a scientist to a great degree on these things. We know the PP texts did not evolve until around the 1st century BCE. The Shariputra dialog is fictitious. Buddhist ideas, like all things, are impermanent - and evolve.

[BodhiOshin]

Again, Historical Perspective in itself is abrahamic religious idea. We are bound to fail in our understanding of Buddhism if we try to look at Buddhism with the eyes of abrahamic religions. Whether or not Sariputra existed in Reality is not the question because at the end of the day Buddhism considers Reality itself to be Maya (Illusion). The Content of Mahayana Sutras is important and not their history because debating history we can go on and on and on and on ...... and on and on ..... and on

[waynehyl]

BodhiOshin

Mahayana Buddhism was established 500 years after the death of Buddha.

In the original teaching of Buddha, there wasn't anything about mahayana and theravada. Both schools were named by the subsequent followers, nit Buddha himself.

Mahayana mixed with Parsian, Brahmin and ancient Greece religion. Therefore bodhisattva and other planets' Buddhas were formed.

[ishwarrior]

What's the word at 4:38?

[ishwarrior]

Ah, worked it out myself.

The word is "catuṣkoṭi".

[kunalgate125]

He mainatained that corner stone of "Buddhist Thought " is "DEPENDENT ARISING" such as:

"Dependent on X as a condition Y arises"

which is "PURE LOGIC"& "REASON" and founded on "DIRECT PERCEPTION", far from any "DOGMA" or "PREJUDICE" as today's "POULAR BUDDHISM" is branded.

Finally remember that

"MIDDLE WAY"/"DEPENDENT ARISING" is and will remain the CORNERSTONE of BUDDHISM.

[kunalgate125]

Nagarjuna's works are considered as the "Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma" by Buddhists because he made BUDDHISM more CONCRETE (i.e. free from dogma SECTERIANISM etc.) by use SOUND use of LOGIC, REASON and ABILITY TO EMBRACE PARADOX.

[SuperHappyCakesHehe]

Is their any descriptions to the music playing during this video? Anyone know the music? It sounds so calming.

[opensourcebuddhism]

isn't it and so much popularity. it is a top ten....

[az1421]

great video 5*****

[URbloodMYfist]

Buddhism is reaching the ultimate state of nirvana which is the ultimate state of Hinduism..of reaching nirvana or enlightenment therefore merging with god and his.her spirit.....no longer requiring materialistic goods...or the ritualistic demands of faith which aims to guide you to that ultimate goal of nirvana..and having once achieved,you abandon the ritualistic methods of religion that primarily guides you to that path,

[bdg299]

Hinduism is a form of monism, Buddhism is not. Please dont say they are the same. Nagarjuna refutes any form of monism, due to Independent origination.

[attilaclark]

When this emptiness is experience and becomes know to the conceptual mind.....a nuclear holocaust of bliss ...believe it, know it.

[attilaclark]

absolute truth vs a relative truth..relatively there is a creator ...absolutely no. Eternity doesn't have a beginning or end it's just now, always.

[opensourcebuddhism]

well mr. or ms. hindu,

i don't see how the brahman answer tells us why birth, why forms? how does it do that? the emptiness is meant to indicate the selflessness at the heart of things, not their non-existence. emptiness alsom means corelessness, hollowness, and mostly, zeroness. your brahman is said to be self-existent. how? it is said to be eternal and unchanging - how? how can anything be these things? nagarjuna pointed out this fallacy.

james

[ShaktipatSage]

You can't create Something from nothingness, and so we derive the understanding that everything was created from the fabric of Self.

If we look at atoms, they are a core a nucleus, and a cloud of Electrons, to make a particle, our bodies are a core, our Heart, around which orbits clouds of cells to create a body.

So when you decrease in scale or raise in scale you BECOME that Core, that Source, that Self, and you can only ever look at the manifest form, because you ARE the Core.

[ShaktipatSage]

How can you have Something, which arises from complete nothingness as Buddhist dogma would have you believe?

The Finite material form called ego is the definition of the Infinite non-material form called Self.

[opensourcebuddhism]

here is the reasoning. if you assert a core, a self, you assert something that is other than that self. if so, you have a subject/object dichotomy. "nothingness" does not refer to "non-existence" - nagarjuna makes that clear. in fact the term sunyata translates far better as "zeroness" for zero lies in the middle of the number line, hence, the middle way. also, it is a hollow circle, including everything, but is coreless in its nature.

james

[ShaktipatSage]

No one said that there is something other than Self, I said that the ego was the finite definition of the same eternal emptiness that you are proclaiming.

You say "zeroness" but I still interpret what you are saying to mean absolute nothingness, where there is no such thing in the Universe.

There is Void, yes, like russian dolls within another, the void is empty, formless, but yet there is a Self, because the Self is formless, as Space itself.

[ShaktipatSage]

I've personally have the experience of falling into the infinite space inside of the Heart, knowing that that space is the same space is at the core of all things, the scale being dependent on the position in the fractal cosmological diagram, yet there is no separation between any position or perspective because there is only One, like you said a hollow circle, but that one is not empty in the sense of "zeroness" but rather it is Infinite!!

[ShaktipatSage]

You basically just repeated the same thing I said except you called it "Zeroness" instead of "Self", what is the difference? I don't see it.

[ShaktipatSage]

The only thing I dislike about Buddhism is that they worry too much about being Buddhists.

[opensourcebuddhism]

...and you hit on precisely the hindu buddhist distinction. buddhists are particularists and treasure the many details. when a buddhist says s/he is one, they know they mean only a merely verbal designation with no idea of one's level, it is just a mere beginner thing to say.

hindus on the other hand, want to mix the whole diverse rich world into a hodgepodge of what emerson called the "oversoul." it's not a bad way to be, it's just not our way. different karma than you, that's all.

james

[ShaktipatSage]

"verbal designation with no idea of one's level, it is just a mere beginner thing to say."

Well, what anyone who knows what they are saying says they are "One" they know it's because that "One" that sense of being is the only thing that exists or ever will exist..

"Tao created One, One created Two, Two created Three, and Three created All Things - What then, is Tao?"

[opensourcebuddhism]

interesting dialogue. actually, you answered your own question. truth is, daoism and buddhism share more of a core perspective than buddhism and hinduism, despite how much the latter two do share. before the one was the dao, and laozi says it is the primordial emptiness, without characteristic or possibility of verbal distinction. "dao" is not "brahman" and neither is "madhyama-pratipad", but they sure are closer. in china they merge rather seamlessly.

[ShaktipatSage]

Now we're just talking about different manifestations of the Tao, which is pure Awareness without any concepts or prejudgments about what that may mean, in the Qabalah it's called "Ayin" - the state of pure no-thingness, it is no-thingness, I'll quote now from the book "Secret Wisdom of the Qabalah" by JCF Fuller

[ShaktipatSage]

All major religions speak of a Creator, the Hindus, Taoists, Christians, they are all speaking of the same Truth, the Buddhists merely understand that it's beyond speech and that you must experience your SELF as that Creator before you can even begin to know what that concept of God is about.

If we say that something is Created, we have to also say there is a Creator, and that is Emptiness itself, the Black Hole, Stargate of Infinite consciousness at the core of ever person planet star atom

[opensourcebuddhism]

sorry friend, but Daoists, Buddhists and Confucian thinkers REJECT the idea of a creator. even the hindu sense of that is weak given the many creation myths. you have to go the abrahamic traditions, judaism, christianity, islam, if you want strong creator accounts. sorry, brahma emerging from vishnu's navel, the cosmic man self-dissolving or you name it, those are weak! think about a conversion if you are so tied to creator stories. i like your last bit, but now youre back to buddhism!

[ShaktipatSage]

The Primal Cause is called the Ayin (Oya) - the No-Thing; that is a Something which, transcending the human intellect, can only be described negatively. It is so named because we do not know, and it is impossible to know, that which there is in this Principle, because it never descends as far as our ignorance and because it is above Wisdom itself.

[ShaktipatSage]

Out of this No-Thing emerges as it were the Ain Soph, the Endlessness, Boundlessness, and Eternality of No-Thing - therefore, in a way, a qualified No-Thingness. In the Book of Job we read:

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

2 It is also called Attikah D'Attikin, the Ancient of all the Ancients, and Attikah Qadosha, the Sacred Ancient; it is sexless and is sometimes described as the Non-Ego or Not-I, the Ayin being altogether beyond the

[ShaktipatSage]

"And there went forth, as a sealed secret, from the head of Ain Soph, a nebulous spark of matter withoutshape or form, a centre of a circle, neither white nor black, neither red nor green, in fact without any colour."

This is the Ain Soph Aur - Light, not as a contradistinction to Darkness, but as a vibration. First, so the symbolism describes, the Ain Soph withdrew Itself into Itself to form an infinite space -

[ShaktipatSage]

the Abyss. In this space appeared a point of light, or life-giving energy, which filled it. The Ain Soph Aur is, consequently, pictured as contraction and expansion, a sucking-in and throwing-out within itself; it therefore symbolizes the centripetal and centrifugal energies of creation, which through their rhythm constitute the Infinite Light out of which the universe is made; this Light has been called the Idealized Blood of the Universe.

I didn't say that we were separate from the Creator

[ShaktipatSage]

The Creator is the Ayin

[ShaktipatSage]

This trinity of Primal Causes - the Ayin, the Ain Soph, and the Ain Soph Aur - is concealed in the first three verses of the Book of Genesis: the creation out of God, since everything in the heavens and the earth comes from the No-Thing; the Spirit of God; and the Light which emanated from God's Voice (22 letters) or words - Let there be Light. The graspable beginning is Light; all before it or, so to say, behind or beyond it, is impenetrable mystery - an Absolute Darkness to the mind.

[ShaktipatSage]

From the Ain Soph Aur emanates Ehyeh (hyha), theI or I Am - abstract thought; then YHVH

(hvhy),It who was, and is, and will be - thought in time; and lastly Elohim (myhla),God in nature

and God in the Bible, in which YHVH (Jehovah or Yahweh) is translated as Lord,

[bdg299]

What you are describing is monism. Buddhism is not monism, due interdependent origination.

[shastrayana]

bdg299, Nirvana is non origination , interdependent origination is due to causes and conditions but of what ? Where did the consciousness go in nirvana ? Even Buddha didn't had an answer for it. energy can never be destroyed nor created , so still there is an intrinsic nature ( energy ) even though you put that into unmanifestation. That is why Buddhism failed with Advaitha ( monisam ) . But I take it us an interpretation problem.

[bdg299]

@shastrayana, you are describing monism. There is nothing that is intrinsic as there is nothing that starts or ends. We make reality there is no intrinsic reality. But as we dont have a beginning or end how can we or anything be catergorized (intrinsic).

[shastrayana]

@bdg299 I agree with you that we make the reality but these are in manifestation itself or with in time and space. But your 2nd point is wrong If we have no beginning and end then we are eternal, energy is eternal not empty as it cannot be created nor destroyed.

[bdg299]

Everything is interdependent origination. This means that nothing exists from its own side. Does energy say to you that it is energy, you need to think that it is energy for it to be energy, we make reality. Were is the start and end. come on.

[shastrayana]

@bfg299 whether you think or do not think of energy, energy is always there becz you are energy itself not empty. Even if you take Copenhagen interpretation that is only applicable in a classical world and hence relative.

[bdg299]

Your view is the view of monism (eternalism). For there to be a cognition that there is energy, there also needs to be a cognition that there is not energy. You can not be found and niether can i, as well as your so called eternal energy as there is no eternal reference point. As Nagarjuna points out all is interdependent as nothing can be found as there is no start or end.

[shastrayana]

@bdg299 As per your reply For there to be a cognition that there is energy, there also needs to be a cognition that there is not energy. Take the 2nd point even to feel / talk about emptiness you need a cogitation, emptiness cannot feel emptiness that is why atmost you can say neither perception nor non perception , nor both nor neither, that is why Buddha kept quiet because it is avachaya , cannot describe, Sunyatha was refuted By Adi Sankara with Ajatha vada / maya vada.

[bdg299]

There isnt even a cognition, this is why the Buddha remained silent as emptiness is empty. If there is only energy the Buddhas answerwould of been energy. Your view is monism. You think there is an eternal reference point which you call energy. Were as the Dharma of the Buddha shows that there is no eternal reference point, hence the term emptiness but emptiness is empty.You,i, anything cannot not be defined of stained.

[shastrayana]

@bdg299 Do you know why Buddhism was totally dead in India ? Because of the wrong notion of the emptiness, Even now Mahayana Buddhist scholars agrees now that emptiness is not nothing but "no-thing". You are just taking the meaning of the word "emptiness" into account that is not what Nagarjuna meant, He was referring to anatma or selfless nature of everything and hence dependent origination.Even Science agrees that space contains dark energy though we cannot directly measure it.

[bdg299]

@shastrayana Your understanding of emptiness (interdependent origination) is in correct. The Buddha has never said emptiness is nothing, how can there be nothing even nothing is empty. Also emptiness is not a "no thing", emptiness is anything. As i said your view is a view of monism.Science is the study of matter (physicalism), it will never agree with Buddha as Buddhas say that matter is empty.Please stop miss representing Buddhism.

[shastrayana]

@bdg299 There is no one particular Buddha Dhama there are many flavors and later developments, one of that is Nagarjuna's School and Sunyavada. So Buddisam like Hinduisam too has many schools and flavours. Even Sunya vada was refuted By Sanakara due to the confusion of the term Su yata. just go through the historical contest man, Buddha only talked about anatta , anatma or the self less nature, all other schools are later developments.

[bdg299]

@shastrayana Nagarjuna did not teach nhilism he taught Madhyamaka. No were in Buddhas Dharma is there a cognition of nhilism (physicalism). What you are saying is untrue.

[shastrayana]

@bdg299 My view is not the traditional monism, in monism there is an ultimate reality which is pure consciousness

I do not advocate an ultimate reality or a reference point but on the contrary emptiness is not nothingness, everything is emptiness & emptiness is everything too but not nothingness, if that is what you mean then I have no conflict with you. But Sunyavadins takes emptiness as nothing that is why Sankara could easily refute it or else someone should have defended it at that time.

[bdg299]

@shastrayana Emptiness is not emptiness.Emptiness is empty. This is way the Buddhas Dharma is not monism.

[bdg299]

@shastrayana Your understanding of Sunyavada is incorrect. Nagarjunas description is (not being, not not being,neither,either) or no-reality but this does not mean that it is nhilism. No were does Nagarjuna describe reality as being nothing. It just means that there no phenomina that can be described or catorgorized. Hence the reason why Budddhism is not a form of monism and Sunyavada does _not_ mean nhilism.

[Cashify]

really? traditional monism maintains that there are TWO reallities? Ultimate and not ultimate? Hardly monistic, is it? "One" means no separation between appearance and reality.

Dattatreya, the teacher of Patanjali makes it clear in his gita that brahman is untouched by any concept of "is" or "is not."

ONE anything means no conception applies.

Whether you prefer the word oneness, consciousness or emptiness, if there is nothing else, it is inconceivable.

[shastrayana]

@Cashify , If there are two realities then it is dualism not monism, I am referring to Sanakara's Advaita rooted in ajatha vada or Non origination theory is the true monism. appearance is relative to the mind and hence maya. What is the difference between Sankara's non origination theory and Nagarjunas depended orgination theory ?. If you say oneness, consciousness w/o an attribute or emptiness are same then I have no conflict with you...pls respond.

[Cashify]

They are one and the same. How could an "I" have a conflict with a "you" about there not being two realities. Is there a reality and an existent nonreality separated from it? Are the real and the unreal two? What can be said of reality?

[NFah43Bk]

This is true Buddhism. contrary to degenerated version which most follow in place except the Himalayas and some parts of India.

Such a thin line of disctinction between Advaita and Actual Buddism.But Buddism cannot answer.one basic question,Why Birth? andly why various forms. if there is utlimate emptyness and no Concept of the Ultimate reality i.e all pervading/CONSTANNT/EVER EXISTING BRAHMA.

[NomadTse]

thank you very much for sharing this video.

[kasuskasus]

This is one of the most awesome dudes in all of human history.

[bdg299]

@kasuskasus well said, probebly the best after Buddha. If the monism movement could cognize what he said, this place and the next would be a lot of fun hey.

[duyjava2]

Good job!

[MaBu888]

Simple. Mind. Thoughts. Stomping of these - nondual. Criticism... all.

[DonkeyofHeaven]

Of course Nargarjuna was not the "founder" of Mahayana Buddhism. He wasn't even the founder of Madhyamika, though he was the great popularizer of Madhyamika. .

People who don't know what is going in with this video should know that this appears to be a narrator creatively presenting a video-play reading a script as if it were the words of Nagarjuna. Though some of the bits appear to be taken from the words of Nagarjuna the whole script is a modern creation.

[opensourcebuddhism]

of course it is an imaginative recreation. definitely there are real nagarjuna words out there. he is deemed the founder by the myths about him: received the prajnaparamita directly from the Nagas, hence his name. i think the video gets at nagarjuna's intention however.

james

[mujaku]

Without the initial bodhi/awakening of Mind (bodhicittotpada), one can't practice Prajna-paramita much less grasp shunyata by which the Mind comes to be fully perfected.

[opensourcebuddhism]

I just hate the words "can't" when it comes to Buddhism. Who says one can't? Without balancing the two wings of Wisdom and Compassion, theory and practice, the "bird" of Buddhism cannot fly.

But it can limp along the ground! An intellectual interface is as good a beginning as any in Buddhism. Compassion grows naturally out of this wisdom and vice-versa.

James

[toranaga801]

some history on Nagarjuna,Nagajuna was one of Saraha's disciples, who attained enlightment in one life by relying upon Heruka.the thought of attaing enlightment in one life seems like no big deal, however it is. this is one of the main reasons buddhas teachings are so profound,i know you say that buddha did not teach a secret path.however he did, nagarjuna was one of the frist humans to learn this quick path to enlightment.dont get me wrong what you say is buddha, however its not true buddha

[AnnaLynne3]

there is so much you need to teach me about buddhism

[BarbarraBay]

The spheres of nothingness & non-perception were rejected by the Buddha-To-Be as Nirvana.

This video merely asserts the spheres of nothingness & non-perception.

This is not Buddhism & misrepresents the stainless insight of the Buddha.

[opensourcebuddhism]

I would like to see you argue out of Nagarjuna's iron-clad logic. The Buddha was clear: if what I says does not accord with logic and experience, discard it.

If the Buddha presented nirvana as an unconditioned realm - sorry! He is wrong! I don't think he did....

Prove that he did not: "where does the candle go when snuffed? Where does the fire go when snuffed?" Buddha refused explicit answers to unanswerable questions.

Think it over....

James

[BarbarraBay]

Buddha said none of things you assumed of him James. When you can quote where the Buddha said these things from the Theravada sutta, I many answer you. 1. Buddha rejected logic and only recommended experience; 2. Nibbana is the unconditioned element; 3. Buddha often taught a flame only exists due to fuel. Try MN 38 for starters.

[opensourcebuddhism]

Kalama sutta: Do not go ...upon tradition...

nor upon what is in a scripture, ...nor upon specious reasoning ...Kalamas, when you yourselves know: These things are good...abide in them." So, SPECIOUS reasoning is to be rejected. Nagarjuna argues from experience: fuel/fire = pratitya samutpada.

There is no understanding of experience in this world apart from logic. Along with meditation, it is a way to know, else we wouldn't have the Buddha's words at all, would we? Are skandhas logical?

James

[smoothgoomer]

Good on you, mate. Keep arguing well and compassionately :)

[opensourcebuddhism]

Thanks Smoothgoomer,

I just love the interlocution. kind of like inter-relationship.

James

[BarbarraBay]

This video misrepresents the Buddhas.

[BarbarraBay]

The views here are nihilist, delusional & contrary to the teaching of the Buddha. Buddha did not teach the realm of nothingness. The emptiness here is incorrect understanding of emptiness. Buddha had no secret teaching, as advised at the end of the Alagaddupama Sutta. This video is not the Middle Path, as described in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. The understanding here is not deep but in fact very shallow. Buddha did not teach 'non-duality'. Buddha described Nirvana very often.

[DonkeyofHeaven]

BarbarraBay, I must speak up to voice disagreemement with your narrow minded view of what Buddha taught. Buddha definitely taught emptiness and said he dwelled in emptiness. Buddha taught Nirvana to the people who were lost in desire and craving, and to those who had success in the initial dhyana practices he taught emptiness. And to those who had success in emptiness practice he taught the Tathata, suchness, practice of the themeless samadhi of awareness. .

[smoothgoomer]

Hey Donkey, there's no need for such pejorative language as to call BarbarraBay "narrow-minded". Perhaps the view that this person expresses is not at the level of sublimity as is the View in Madhyamika, but to call his/her view narrow-minded is only going to cause bad feeling. Also, in the Therevada scriptures there is no mention of the higher teachings, so basing an argument around teachings they don't have is rather self-defeating. Anyway, whatever!

[kasuskasus]

Thank you for this video.

[aghabeypasha]

Wow; I really thought all this time that the entire world is mere mind; thanks for the video.

[opensourcebuddhism]

Sure thing Agha,

I am always so happy to convert people away from the dread Yogacara heresy!

James

[aghabeypasha]

I still find it overwhelming though; I mean the transition from conventional to ultimate reality. I don't know if I am ready to take on this "new" concept. Any suggestions?

[kirbycairo]

Narajuna found truths hundreds of years ago that Western Philosophers are just beginning to discover today.

[zen699]

what argument? lol

[attilaclark]

I got Chadrakurtis " Middle Way" , discourses on the Middle Way and it's a challenging read for sure. Try to tackle that book sometime.

[opensourcebuddhism]

To Hellojuli,

I don't know how this video misrepresents the Buddhas. I can say that Buddha is not a "her" as far as this goes. Buddhi is the feminine.

Earth does not play a role (a big one anyway) in Buddhism. Buddha sought a way out of earth, not into earth.

James

[waynough]

i love nagajuna and all beings,love is the answer.

[opensourcebuddhism]

Sir or Madam,

Neither the Buddha nor Nagarjuna ever claimed to have discovered anything other than logical conclusions based on experience. Period. Some Buddhists do claim "special transmissions" and the like, but they miss the Buddha's genius.  We have mediocre Marxists, mediocre atheists, Jews, Christians. As Allen Ginsburg put it, "Someone has to be a mediocre Buddhist. Why not me?"

I do not get where you find this in Kacynski's presentation. Explain please....

[hellojuli1n]

I entrust myself to Earth;

Earth entrusts herself to me.

I entrust myself to Buddha;

Buddha entrusts herself to me.

I don't know if this is the best gatha to address your question, but it says something important. If you claim to represent the spotless family of Buddhas, then you should not misrepresent them.

[grassfell]

Nice music. Where can I find it on youtube?

I'm sceptical of traditions that say they have the "real teachings" which weren't revealed to others. From my understanding, Buddha said he didn't give any secret teachings limited to a clique of people. Conflicting texts seem to make modern Buddhism contradictory like all other religions.

[bdg299]

This is awsome, thanks. Nagajuna rocks!!!!!!