Help
Sign In
ati
February 2009 
Nagarjuna and Shunyata (Emptiness)
Posted on Mar 9th, 2007
by 
Anand
Anand
Lately, I've been reading Jay L. Garfield's stunningly beautiful translation of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā or "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way." It is very demanding reading but will pay off especially if you have an analytic philosophy background. Garfield's translation is rigorous and precise - hence the effort needed to comprehend it.
Rather than babble about emptiness (Śūnyatā in Sanskrit), I think it is better to let other more qualified people give a description. Emptiness refers to our innate ability to see forms, patterns, events, possibilities and perspectives as they are rather than the way we'd like to see them. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche in "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" - another phenomenal book - describes emptiness as: "So form is empty. But empty of what? Form is empty of our preconceptions, empty of our judgments. If we do not evaluate and categorize the maple leaf falling and landing on the stream as opposed to the garbage heap in New York, then they are there, what is. They are empty of preconception. They are precisely, what they are, of course! Garbage is garbage, a maple leaf is a maple leaf, "what is" is "what is." Form is empty if we see it in the absence of our own personal interpretations of it." [page 188]
Unfortunately, and because of the subtlety of emptiness, we can be misled. Emptiness does not mean that we should see - let's say - a physical world for what it is rather than our preconceptions of it. The problem here is that the very notion of a physical world is a concept and obscures the real world. And it does not help to equate emptiness with a Buddhist no-self position either since the concept of no-self is, er, just another concept.
As Garfield's translation gathers pace, he writes "The root delusion---the fundamental cognitive error---is the confusion of merely conventional existence with inherent existence. The realization of emptiness eliminates that fabrication of essence, which eliminates grasping, contaminated action, and its pernicious consequences." [page 248]
And this is followed by,
Chapter 18:6
Rather than babble about emptiness (Śūnyatā in Sanskrit), I think it is better to let other more qualified people give a description. Emptiness refers to our innate ability to see forms, patterns, events, possibilities and perspectives as they are rather than the way we'd like to see them. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche in "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" - another phenomenal book - describes emptiness as: "So form is empty. But empty of what? Form is empty of our preconceptions, empty of our judgments. If we do not evaluate and categorize the maple leaf falling and landing on the stream as opposed to the garbage heap in New York, then they are there, what is. They are empty of preconception. They are precisely, what they are, of course! Garbage is garbage, a maple leaf is a maple leaf, "what is" is "what is." Form is empty if we see it in the absence of our own personal interpretations of it." [page 188]
Unfortunately, and because of the subtlety of emptiness, we can be misled. Emptiness does not mean that we should see - let's say - a physical world for what it is rather than our preconceptions of it. The problem here is that the very notion of a physical world is a concept and obscures the real world. And it does not help to equate emptiness with a Buddhist no-self position either since the concept of no-self is, er, just another concept.
As Garfield's translation gathers pace, he writes "The root delusion---the fundamental cognitive error---is the confusion of merely conventional existence with inherent existence. The realization of emptiness eliminates that fabrication of essence, which eliminates grasping, contaminated action, and its pernicious consequences." [page 248]
And this is followed by,
Chapter 18:6
"That there is a self has been taught,
And the doctrine of no-self,
By the buddhas, as well as the
Doctrine of neither self nor nonself."
And the doctrine of no-self,
By the buddhas, as well as the
Doctrine of neither self nor nonself."
To neither the concept of self nor to no-self does there correspond an entity. These designations are conventional through and through and the mistake we keep making is trying to reify conventional designations. Garfield writes "To say neither self nor non-self is, from this perspective, not to shrug one's shoulders in indecision but to recognize that while each of these is a useful characterization of the situation for some purposes, neither can be understood as correctly ascribing a property to an independently existing entity. And if they cannot be understood in this way, what are we really saying?"
And almost immediately following this, he says "Nagarjuna begins to move toward his famous and surprising identification of nirvana with samsara, and of emptiness with conventional reality." [page 249]
If there are no entities lurking behind our conventional designations, aren't our conventional designations, er, merely conventional and empty of being ultimates? It is our tendency to reify conventions that causes problems, right?
Nāgārjuna's Śūnyatā is literally groundbreaking - sorry, sorry, couldn't resist - and paved the way for tantra and the realization of only Ati to emerge (at the very least in Buddhism and in Hinduism).
And almost immediately following this, he says "Nagarjuna begins to move toward his famous and surprising identification of nirvana with samsara, and of emptiness with conventional reality." [page 249]
If there are no entities lurking behind our conventional designations, aren't our conventional designations, er, merely conventional and empty of being ultimates? It is our tendency to reify conventions that causes problems, right?
Nāgārjuna's Śūnyatā is literally groundbreaking - sorry, sorry, couldn't resist - and paved the way for tantra and the realization of only Ati to emerge (at the very least in Buddhism and in Hinduism).
Access: PublicTagged with: Nagarjuna, shunyata, emptiness, Buddhism, Garfield, middle way, Trungpa Rinpoche, spiritual materialism, tantra, Ati, conventional designation, nirvana, samsara
Hi Anand,
”If there are no entities lurking behind our conventional designations, aren't our conventional designations, er, merely conventional and empty of being ultimates? It is our tendency to reify conventions that causes problems, right?”
I agree with you, accepting as I do received wisdom that conventional designations are empty of inherent (& permanent) self-existence … if that's what you mean by ”.. empty of being ultimates ..” So in that sense our tendency to reify conventions is the root cause of our problems, yes.
As regards conventional reality, it is the attachment and aversion that follows self-grasping that is the more obvious cause of problems, wouldn't you say?
Yet I'd still love to be able to see beneath the surface skein of conventional designations, even if risking getting attached.
Lol
You said “Yet I'd still love to be able to see beneath the surface skein of conventional designations, even if risking getting attached.”
And I'm with you completely. The Madhyamika tends to overdo the via negativa approach. This is why I like tantra a lot because you can have your cake and eat it too! Look underneath the conventions and wallow in whatever comes up without getting sucked in. That's why I wrote at the end of the blog entry “Nagarjuna's Sunyata is literally groundbreaking … and paved the way for tantra and the realization of only Ati to emerge.”
Anand
I like tantra also. On the cushion, I do my best with essentialised sadhana practice (Dzogchen / Anuyoga). Off the cushion …. I do my best : )
Re, seeing “.. beneath the surface skein ..” I was being whimsical …. I'd love to be able to see dancing motes of light, and energy streaming …. a bit like Neo does in the Matrix!!
I do hope you find time to start a thread in the Integral Post-metaphysical Spirituality pod concerning your ideas on physicalism & perspectives.
And btw, Ed Berge is there in the pod …. he and theurj are one and the same.
All best, Lol
“I do hope you find time to start a thread in the Integral Post-metaphysical Spirituality pod concerning your ideas on physicalism & perspectives.”
Done.
Anand