DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**TXmjLW9b** · 05-29-2012, 09:45 AM

Nirvana has inherent existence but is empty. although nirvana inherently exists, it is not a 'self'. it is not-self (anatta). it is empty of self (sunnata). the logic of Nagarjuna sounds questionable, in appearing to assert a synonomity between 'existence' and 'self'.

Are you saying Nirvana is not-self? I thought "Form is not-self," "Feeling is not-self,"...

Also, I thought it is commonly agreed that the definition of not-self is 'empty' of self, which means that self does not inherently exist, i.e. 'self' is dependent on others. For you to say that Nirvana inherently exist, but is also not-self (does not inherently exist) seems to be saying Nirvana is both white and black in the same breath.

I think your problem with Nagarjuna is not with his logic. Your problem is with his definition of terms like 'sunyata.'

If you want to say Nirvana has inherent existence, then it is NOT-'not-self.' Does NOT-'not-self' implies 'self'? Well, that's for you to figure out.

if "not-self" did not inherently exist, then how could all things be not-self? this simple statement refutes the logic of Nagarjuna

But I don't want to discuss Nirvana, so I'll just address this point.

If phenomenons do not exist, then the concept of "not-self" will not exist, because there is nothing to attach the concept of 'not-self' to.
So the concept of "not-self" is dependent on the existence of phenomenons, that's is why the concept of "not-self" does not inherently exist.

Nagarjuna's logic is fine here.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality (iddapaccayatta).

Paccaya Sutta

Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma

Now, regarding this quote, if let us assume that there is only 'XYZ' in the world, and it is in the state of Nirvana. So there is nothing in the world that is not in the state of Nirvana.

Can we describe XYZ as 'conditional?' 'inconstant?' 'unsatisfactory?' 'Not-self?'

If not, does Dhamma exist in this world? I think not, because there will be nothing that is in the state of 'inconstant'/'unsatisfactory'/'Not-self.'

So we can say that Dhamma does not inherently exist, because existence of Dhamma depends on the existence of a phenomenon that is not in the state of Nirvana.

Dhamma is anatta as well.

05-29-2012, 09:45 AM	#28
TXmjLW9b Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 361 Senior Member	Nirvana has inherent existence but is empty. although nirvana inherently exists, it is not a 'self'. it is not-self (anatta). it is empty of self (sunnata). the logic of Nagarjuna sounds questionable, in appearing to assert a synonomity between 'existence' and 'self'. Are you saying Nirvana is not-self? I thought "Form is not-self," "Feeling is not-self,"... Also, I thought it is commonly agreed that the definition of not-self is 'empty' of self, which means that self does not inherently exist, i.e. 'self' is dependent on others. For you to say that Nirvana inherently exist, but is also not-self (does not inherently exist) seems to be saying Nirvana is both white and black in the same breath. I think your problem with Nagarjuna is not with his logic. Your problem is with his definition of terms like 'sunyata.' If you want to say Nirvana has inherent existence, then it is NOT-'not-self.' Does NOT-'not-self' implies 'self'? Well, that's for you to figure out. if "not-self" did not inherently exist, then how could all things be not-self? this simple statement refutes the logic of Nagarjuna But I don't want to discuss Nirvana, so I'll just address this point. If phenomenons do not exist, then the concept of "not-self" will not exist, because there is nothing to attach the concept of 'not-self' to. So the concept of "not-self" is dependent on the existence of phenomenons, that's is why the concept of "not-self" does not inherently exist. Nagarjuna's logic is fine here. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality (iddapaccayatta). Paccaya Sutta Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self. The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma Now, regarding this quote, if let us assume that there is only 'XYZ' in the world, and it is in the state of Nirvana. So there is nothing in the world that is not in the state of Nirvana. Can we describe XYZ as 'conditional?' 'inconstant?' 'unsatisfactory?' 'Not-self?' If not, does Dhamma exist in this world? I think not, because there will be nothing that is in the state of 'inconstant'/'unsatisfactory'/'Not-self.' So we can say that Dhamma does not inherently exist, because existence of Dhamma depends on the existence of a phenomenon that is not in the state of Nirvana. Dhamma is anatta as well.
	Quote