Fonzy B 2008-07-14

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Nagarjuna: Theory and Practice

Nagarjuna was a philosopher of unparalleled excellence, both in the East and the West, and Garfield has presented his Mulamadhyamakakarika with clarity, competence and coherence. If you like philosophy, and are a serious spiritual seeker with an inclination for The Perennial Philosophy, then this book is for you. However, you will need determination and perseverance to finish this book, for it will take you six months to a year to master its contents.

Here is a sample of Nagarjuna's tactics. He begins by attacking causality. He dissects causality down to its root premises (a thing is caused by itself, by another, by both, or has no cause) and then he closely scrutinizes those root premises and demonstrates that none of them possess any "potency", or power, to force, stimulate, compel, oblige, constrain, drive, make or cause anything to come into existence. Therefore, they are "empty". That is, they have no inherent self-nature or essence to affect anything else. They are like Mother Hubbard's cupboard, there is nothing there. Therefore, if the causes are "empty", the thing created is "empty". But all that is theory.

But what about in practice?. Reading this book will change your thinking. You will unconsciously become a Skeptic, and will not be aware of the state of your own mind until you ponder an issue found in Nagarjuna's treatise. Only then will you realize that you are stuck between three equally unsatisfactory propositions "Things exist", "Things do not exist" and "Things both do and do not exist." Not to worry though. You will be experiencing precisely what Nagarjuna intended.

Garfield specifically declares Nagarjuna's intention, page 314, "This, of course, is the key to the soteriological character of the text: reification is the root of grasping and craving and hence of all suffering. And it is perfectly natural, despite its incoherence. By understanding emptiness, Nagarjuna intends one to break this habit and extirpate the root of suffering."

Walks Over Ice 2007-11-04

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

Next to the Heart Sutra (Maha Prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra), one of the most important writings for Mahayana Buddhists, and this is a good translation and commentary (there is Ocean of Reasoning, but that is way, way too massive and far more than what is necessary). Stick with the basics and simplicity, I always say. For a book of this magnitude, pick this one. You'll have enough to study while still coming to grips with its message.

calmly 2007-10-16

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

Before you stare at a wall to practice suchness, you may want to spend some time acquainting yourself with this philosophical presentation that justifies your practice.

It will be no easy task. Both Nagarjuna's text and Garfield's commentary are challenging: I'm sure that would be true for the Western philosophers Garfield's commentary is targeted to and it certainly was for me as a lay person. But I persisted in what often seemed repetitious and tedious to find enough interspersed wisdom to make my patient reading worthwhile. This is not a book I could comfortably have browsed. Without Garfield's commentary, I might have quickly read over Nagarjuna's verses and believed I had understood much of it. Despite much that seemed cryptic, I'd have thought myself well educated in dependent origination, impermanence, emptiness, the self and other key Buddhist concepts. But, if I did that, I may have missed about 99% of what Garfield found therein.

A Sanskrit text by Nagarjuna translated into Tibetan and then into English by Garfield. A commentary informed by a tradition of Tibetan teachings. Understandings which may enrich one's meditation ... on emptiness. It is humbling to consider that Nagarjuna composed his verses in India about the 2nd century A.D. Such a thorough and penetrating analysis must have resulted from many challenges from others. That it holds up is something worth ... experiencing as one reads Nagarjuna and Garfield.

Nagarjuna's text is presented by itself, then again interspersed wihin Garfield's commentary. Garfield proceeds very precisely, keeping his interpretations closely tied to the verses at hand. Together they offer a tour de force in Buddhist philosophy. If you read this book and later hear someone say, as if it were a complete thought, that the self is an illusion, you should understand much better what the too often unstated context for such a statement is.

There are many valuable lessons: about the lack of inherent existence, interdependence, conventional and ultimate truth, dependent origination of all phenomena, the emptiness of even emptiness, even dependent origination as dependently originated, reification, of the self as a conventional designation. There are conclusions I found profound such as that "the conventional nature of conventional entities and their emptiness are one and the same". That "to say of a thing that is dependently arisen is to say that its identity as a single entity is nothing more than being the reference of a word", i.e. that its identity "depends upon verbal convention". Do I follow that? One problem may be that at the time I read such lines I may think I do but a short while later, I've lost it. This is not a book I would want to be tested on anytime soon after finishing it. I don't know when I will be ready for such a test. The answers may not be found through further study of the text and commentary but through meditation ... or perhaps some of both.

I recommend going back over after a first reading and making notes. Even then, it may take ... years ... lifetimes? ... for everything taught in here to sink in, but the intent is to enable you to internalize the teachings presented here through meditation so that it becomes more than philosophy but a way to live. A tall order but that is what Buddhist meditative practice, properly understand, seems to be.

I do feel I understand better from this reading, if only a little better, why meditation seems warranted. Being a less confused about that seems worthwhile.

TOM CORBETT 2007-01-21

4 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

i have not studied all of nagarjunas logic carefully in this book, it seems that he is arguing for the underlying emptiness of all things on the basis of his assumption of dependent or mutual arising. perhaps its a bit more complicated than this though. a cup of tea is not a cup of tea in itself. nor does the teabag have any individual or inherent identity, rather the teabag is a collection of collections without any individuality. just as my finger is a collection of cells, so a teabag is a combination of dependent things. infact he believes that everything depends on the presence or absence of something else. tea leaves depend on the presence of tanins, flavins, cells, maturation, drying, there is nothing inherently existent that could be called the individuality of the teabag. this of course defies common sense, but is reasonable. why cannot a collection be at one and the same time an individuality. ie one in many, or many as one. such an argument though would be contrary to nagarjunas thrust, which is to emphasise the existence of emptiness through dependence. ie everything that is dependent has no individual uniqueness (or soul) since all individuals are merely collections.

i am still studying nagarjuna, it seems that a statement such as "walker is not the same as walking, nor is it different from walking" can be argued any way which can. "walker is not the same as walking, if it were how could the two be told apart, nor is walker different from walking, or otherwise there would be walking without walker." it could be argued on the grounds of oneness that walker and walking are one and the same, that structure and function are inseperable. you could just as easily say that walker is the same as walking and that is why there isnt walking without walker. if nagarjuna says that legs are not the same as arms because they can be told apart he is right, because they can be told apart, but wrong because arms and legs are all part of one body and cannot be separated. so paradoxically one can say that walker and walking are not the same, but one can also say that they are the same (the same body/oneness).

it can be argued that walker is walking, walker is not walking, and as nagarjuna says walker is not the same as, nor different from walking. infact whatever you seek to prove, if you are clever enough, you can prove it. this is the nature of reason and logic. a donkey that is lead by the carrot of the person who possesses it.

i find his logic is clear (it is)infact, it is pure genius, but as with all logic one has to realise that at this moment logic is thoroughly illogical. though perhaps when he wrote it was thoroughly logical. logic being logical? logic being illogical? two sides of the same coin. if logical can be illogical why discuss something as important as emptiness using logic? this defies a common understanding of nagarjuna, unless of course he wished to impress buddhist emptiness upon the minds of the common people. or, perhaps he really did believe in the immutable logos (reason) of plato. that insoluble all pervasive notion of truth. personally i see that reason has its uses (many of them groundbreaking and earth shattering), but can often be used to say what you want, especially when it comes to philosophy.

i find the argument for emptiness grounded in dependent arising 'can' be compelling, or not compelling. its just how you approach it. in that a collection does not necessarily indicate an individuality, it could be seen as a collective, for example a sea sponge colony 'may' have no singular conscious individuality as the colony as a whole, but then a human being is a collection with a consciousness . but as i see it, dependent arising could be used as a proof against emptiness just as much as a proof for it. i believe that the buddha would have days where he took time out from such an approach, that is he would respect the agile logical display of nagarjuna, but have said "not on mondays nagarjuna" (but only if you dont mind my friend).

i dont think that the buddha was about dogmatising certain concepts and words such as emptiness, as useful as they may be. even freedom can become an obstacle to relationship and his word "liberation" can be in buddhism taken to mean many different things. it may just be that mental freedom and freedom from suffering are synonymous. emptiness is representative of water and air, but one should not forget the presence of fire, or gold (earth)(male elements)that are representative of fullness/form. to argue away form for emptiness seems unbalanced. just as to argue away emptiness for form would be unbalanced, though it may be an interesting excercise (and not too difficult). infact rising to the challenge if one looks in minute detail/huge magnification at an area of space one will find it a quantum soup, and not nearly as empty as one expected. infact buddha is implacable when he says emptiness is form for this could imply that there is no emptiness, only form. or visa-versa one could argue that all is empty.

i have also read nagarjunas, i think its called the flower garland, which was less a discussion of emptiness and logical proof for such, though his approach in the middle way comes across in this book too. no, i remember now its called the discourse of the precious flower garland.

i realise that my comments on nagarguna's mulamadhyamakakarika may seem disrespectful regarding the buddhist saint, and have no desire to show disrespect, but i do feel that all in all, though brilliant his arguments are not compelling ground for emptiness. this is because i am aware of the bias behind reason. there are other ways to illustrate emptiness. the buddhas "emptiness is form" for example is a much clearer statement of anti-logic, that i find very elegant. also the prescence of the zero in any effective numerical system requires a hypothetical emptiness.

i have no doubt that in the original tongue nagarjuna was a marvellous poet, sadly this does not come across in this translation or in "verses from the centre" a different translation of the same work. perhaps, in his poetic form his genius would have shone out as much as it does from his rational genius.

this is an interesting book to read, a fascinating insight into the mind of an early buddhist saint and an example of how one can use logic to prove anything, even that which intuitively seems almost impossible. but personally i dont feel it tells me anything, other than showing patterns of logic, which are a useful thing to aquire. i must say though that i am 'astonished' by the mans logical dexterity.

i would have found nagarjuna more interesting if he had tried to prove the existence of form and balanced this with a proof for the existence of emptiness. for in truth it is not balanced to prove the existence of emptiness without proving the existence of form. and you cannot prove the existence of emptiness without proving the existence of form, for emptiness is form. it can be argued that all is emptiness, but it can also be argued that all is form. whatever you look for is whatever you find. such is the nature of reality. seek and you will find.

infact... making things fun, and killing the buddhas word, i would say that "form is not emptiness, form is form" is just as true as "emptiness is form". this is the buddas freedom. playing with logic, one does not take reason too seriously on mondays, but... aah, on tuesdays it is profoundly important.

thank you nagarjuna for the encouragement you have given many.

love, flakey xxx.

Maryanne Marx 2007-01-09

0 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

For those desiring a 'meat & potatoes' study of the Middle Way, this is an excellent book.