[Buddha-l] Non-arising

[Richard Nance]

Hi all --

I just want to chime in briefly to comment on Dan's presentation of
Nagarjuna's take on Buddhist views re: nirvana. Dan wrote:

"If Nirvana is unconditioned, then there are no causes and conditions which
can produce it.
Buddhists say there is a Marga (Path/method) that if you do X, Y, and Z, you
will attain nirvana.
If X, Y, and Z lead to the attainment of nirvana, then nirvana is not
unconditioned, since one has just stipulated the conditions.
OR
Nirvana IS unconditioned, in which case the claim that X, Y, and Z lead to
the attainment of Nirvana is nonsense.
In either case, Nagarjuna concludes, Buddhists are speaking nonsense."

Note that this argument embeds an assumption that's crucial to its
effectiveness, and that's also easy to miss: "attainment of nirvana" =
"nirvana." In other words: there's no important distinction to be
drawn between attaining X and X itself. X _just is_ the attainment of
X.

Perhaps this is true in the case of nirvana. But it hardly seems
convincing more generally. Compare: a medal won at an Olympic event
can be melted down. Is the same true of its attainment?

Best wishes,

R. Nance
Indiana University