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

**Imalaycle** · 06-25-2011, 01:42 AM

Hi Jechbi,
You are right here. This most certainly does not mean that nothing exists. It is an uninformed error to claim that the doctrine of inherent existence is claiming that nothing exists. The tenets of the Prasangika school present their teachings in terms of the middle way, avoiding extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

Merely splitting the difference between extremes isn't "The Middle Way" -- When the Buddha speaks of "teaching from the Middle", he goes straight into a description of PS/PN.

At no point do they claim that nothing exists. To assert this is to misrepresent the tenets. The point of that characterization is that the "difference" between "nothing exists" and "things have no inherent existence" is merely specious and semantic, and that it is the same sort of speculative view that the Buddha refuted:

Things exist: That is one extreme of speculative view
Things do not exist: that is another
Things both exist and do not exist: the third
Things neither exist nor do not exist: That is the fourth

Things have inherent existence: That is one extreme of speculative view
Things have no inherent existence: That is the second, Nagarjuna's assertion
things both have inherent existence adn do not have inherent existence: that is the third
Things neither have nor do not have inherent existence: that is the fourth.

The only difference is the vague equivocation "inherent".

The doctrine of the 'two truths' is a logical and philosophical analysis of what we call existence.
Meaning, an ONTOLOGY.

It posits that things exist conventionally and thus serve the purpose of their designation. Upon investigation, however, they are found to not have the characteristics we attribute to them, (ie. a solid, independent existence from their own side). They are 'empty' of this mode of being but not non-existent. This is an ONTOLOGY.

Nagarjuna was making a valid point from this perspective, thus: As we can all see that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions, there can be no solidly existing 'thing' from it's own side. If there were, then paradoxically it could not ever be created. It's just pointing out the obvious absurdity of that idea and was used to counter the Hindu assertion of an eternal unchanging Atman amongst other things. And it seems the Hindu representation is a Straw Man when applied to anything else in the universe besides the Atman.

Furthermore, the understanding of this doctrine is a key factor in gaining enlightenment, as emptiness is in fact the 'emptiness of inherent existence' and not some mere 'space' or such.

Would you agree? I wouldn't. Impermanence is easy to see. But of course, the above is in reference to an entirely different sort of "enlightenment" than what the Buddha taught, as well.

06-25-2011, 01:42 AM	#7
Imalaycle Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 392 Senior Member	Hi Jechbi, You are right here. This most certainly does not mean that nothing exists. It is an uninformed error to claim that the doctrine of inherent existence is claiming that nothing exists. The tenets of the Prasangika school present their teachings in terms of the middle way, avoiding extremes of eternalism and nihilism. Merely splitting the difference between extremes isn't "The Middle Way" -- When the Buddha speaks of "teaching from the Middle", he goes straight into a description of PS/PN. At no point do they claim that nothing exists. To assert this is to misrepresent the tenets. The point of that characterization is that the "difference" between "nothing exists" and "things have no inherent existence" is merely specious and semantic, and that it is the same sort of speculative view that the Buddha refuted: Things exist: That is one extreme of speculative view Things do not exist: that is another Things both exist and do not exist: the third Things neither exist nor do not exist: That is the fourth Things have inherent existence: That is one extreme of speculative view Things have no inherent existence: That is the second, Nagarjuna's assertion things both have inherent existence adn do not have inherent existence: that is the third Things neither have nor do not have inherent existence: that is the fourth. The only difference is the vague equivocation "inherent". The doctrine of the 'two truths' is a logical and philosophical analysis of what we call existence. Meaning, an ONTOLOGY. It posits that things exist conventionally and thus serve the purpose of their designation. Upon investigation, however, they are found to not have the characteristics we attribute to them, (ie. a solid, independent existence from their own side). They are 'empty' of this mode of being but not non-existent. This is an ONTOLOGY. Nagarjuna was making a valid point from this perspective, thus: As we can all see that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions, there can be no solidly existing 'thing' from it's own side. If there were, then paradoxically it could not ever be created. It's just pointing out the obvious absurdity of that idea and was used to counter the Hindu assertion of an eternal unchanging Atman amongst other things. And it seems the Hindu representation is a Straw Man when applied to anything else in the universe besides the Atman. Furthermore, the understanding of this doctrine is a key factor in gaining enlightenment, as emptiness is in fact the 'emptiness of inherent existence' and not some mere 'space' or such. Would you agree? I wouldn't. Impermanence is easy to see. But of course, the above is in reference to an entirely different sort of "enlightenment" than what the Buddha taught, as well.
	Quote