[Buddha-l] Non-arising

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard Nance's very astute comment (viz. that Nagarjuna's argument requires 
a conflation of "nirvana" with "attainment of nirvana") is important.

The Buddhists recognized that. We have nearly 2000 years of Buddhist history 
that responded to Nagarjuna's observation.

If we keep in mind that Nagarjuna's point is that when Buddhists try to put 
the marga and nirvana together they end up abusing one or the other concept, 
and thus speaking nonsense, then we can better appreciate the more prominent 
responses.

Prajnaparamita literature responded with a rhetoric of attainment and 
non-attainment. (When one enters nirvana, one recognizes that no one has 
ever entered nirvana; Attaining is non-attaining, hence it is attaining; 
etc.)

In East Asia they tried to side-step the problem with the notion of Sudden 
Awakening, which happens spontaneously, as if for no reason (Gradual meant a 
step by step "causal" means) -- but that soon got dragged back into the 
causal realm by getting explained as being the culmination of practices, 
merit, etc. from countless past lives, etc.

In fact, Nagarjuna was correct. When Buddhists put nirvana and marga in the 
same room, they speak nonsense. Some Buddhists like to speak nonsense, and 
there is a lot of authoritative Buddhist nonsense.

Perhaps someone will quote some in response.

In anticipation,
Dan