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

**Poohoppesmase** · 06-26-2011, 10:01 PM

Impermanence is an abstract concept. The notion of "inherent existence" is just word-wallowing. Papanca.

The technical term for a concept such as "inherent existence" is "word salad".

...and so Nagarjuna rejected it.

Inherent existence/own-being (svabhava) was a notion cooked up by various Abhidhammic schools -- in particular, Sarvastivada -- which felt that it was needed in order to explain causality/conditionality. Nagurjuna was attacking this notion. He sought to demonstrate that it was both inconsistent logically and incompatible with the Buddha's teachings.

If there were inherent nature, all beings would be unborn and unceasing, would be fixed in place forever, separated from the variety of situations. If [things] were not empty, there could be no attainment of what had not been attained, no ending of anguish [dukkha] and no letting go of all actions and afflictions. Whatever is contingently related [i.e. via this/that conditionality], that is explained as emptiness. That is contingently configured; it is the central path. Emptiness, stated in positive terms, is this/that conditionality.
Stated in negative terms, it is the absence of the four mistaken views (exists, doesn't exist, both, neither). That is, abandon these and the result is realization of emptiness.

"Emptiness" itself is a provisional designation -- a signpost to the destination, not the destination itself.

06-26-2011, 10:01 PM	#18
Poohoppesmase Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 398 Senior Member	Impermanence is an abstract concept. The notion of "inherent existence" is just word-wallowing. Papanca. The technical term for a concept such as "inherent existence" is "word salad". ...and so Nagarjuna rejected it. Inherent existence/own-being (svabhava) was a notion cooked up by various Abhidhammic schools -- in particular, Sarvastivada -- which felt that it was needed in order to explain causality/conditionality. Nagurjuna was attacking this notion. He sought to demonstrate that it was both inconsistent logically and incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. If there were inherent nature, all beings would be unborn and unceasing, would be fixed in place forever, separated from the variety of situations. If [things] were not empty, there could be no attainment of what had not been attained, no ending of anguish [dukkha] and no letting go of all actions and afflictions. Whatever is contingently related [i.e. via this/that conditionality], that is explained as emptiness. That is contingently configured; it is the central path. Emptiness, stated in positive terms, is this/that conditionality. Stated in negative terms, it is the absence of the four mistaken views (exists, doesn't exist, both, neither). That is, abandon these and the result is realization of emptiness. "Emptiness" itself is a provisional designation -- a signpost to the destination, not the destination itself.
	Quote