I found this page about Nagarjuna.

https://iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/

Here's the summary at top of the page. I've added some white space here and there because, well, that seemed appropriate. :-)

Often referred to as “the second Buddha” by Tibetan and East Asian Mahayana (Great Vehicle) traditions of Buddhism, Nagarjuna offered sharp criticisms of Brahminical and Buddhist substantialist philosophy, theory of knowledge, and approaches to practice.

Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life.

All such assumptions are called into fundamental question by Nagarjuna’s unique perspective which is grounded in the insight of emptiness (sunyata), a concept which does not mean “non-existence” or “nihility” (abhava), but rather the lack of autonomous existence (nihsvabhava). Denial of autonomy according to Nagarjuna does not leave us with a sense of metaphysical or existential privation, a loss of some hoped-for independence and freedom, but instead offers us a sense of liberation through demonstrating the interconnectedness of all things, including human beings and the manner in which human life unfolds in the natural and social worlds.

Nagarjuna’s central concept of the “emptiness (sunyata) of all things (dharmas),” which pointed to the incessantly changing and so never fixed nature of all phenomena, served as much as the terminological prop of subsequent Buddhist philosophical thinking as the vexation of opposed Vedic systems. The concept had fundamental implications for Indian philosophical models of causation, substance ontology, epistemology, conceptualizations of language, ethics and theories of world-liberating salvation, and proved seminal even for Buddhist philosophies in India, Tibet, China and Japan very different from Nagarjuna’s own.

Indeed it would not be an overstatement to say that Nagarjuna’s innovative concept of emptiness, though it was hermeneutically appropriated in many different ways by subsequent philosophers in both South and East Asia, was to profoundly influence the character of Buddhist thought.

Where is the barking dog option??? I can't find it anywhere!

To hear the glorious trumpeting sound of my own voice reverberating around the empty cathedral of my tiny little mind. To enjoy the sound of the keys on my keyboard going clickety clack, clickety clack in rhyme with my childlike emotions.

All else is illusion.

My reasoning, is that I actually want people to find the flaws and breaks in my reasoning — MSC

To get engagement, forget about your reasoning, and ask questions about the reasoning of others. Most of us most of the time, here and everywhere, want to talk about our ideas, our thoughts, our experiences etc. If you're willing to go along with that, you'll be engaged. You'll be popular beyond your wildest dreams. :-)

And, um, do what I say and not what I do. :-)

Hippyhead runs through the digital commune, hoping to impress the hippy chicks with his vitality.

Often threads deemed not up to par by the mods will be relocated to the Lounge instead of being deleted. You, know kinda like Catholic purgatory, it's better than hell.

In the real world you kind of have to nod your head and keep up a pretense. I suck at that skill. — Mayor of Simpleton

I hear ya brother. Luckily I have uncovered a simple solution to this very problem. :-)

Get rid of all the people in my life except for one truly wonderful woman. Like you I basically suck at all the dances one has to do to be acceptable in polite company. My humor is so um, advanced, that only I get it etc etc. If you get rid of the polite company, problem solved! :-)

WARNING: Kids, don't try this at home.

I now wish to make a highly predictable remark. :-)

You know how everyone is saying we should have seen the virus coming, because it was obvious that it eventually would? You know they say we shouldn't have just blindly wandered along blissfully assuming a pandemic could never happen? You know how they say we should have taken decisive action before the crisis, instead of bumbling in to it and having to figure things out on the run?

I'm nervous about the debate tonite. We are so close. Please Biden, play it safe, say what you always say, don't get creative, keep smiling when he tries to rattle you. Let him talk all night if that's what he wants to do. Don't do anything to rock the boat. We're ahead. Run out the clock.

Perhaps this thread could also be titled...

What Happens When We Get Everything We Want?

And the originating texts is the Satipatthana Sutta - 'the discourse on mindfulness'. It is all about 'seeing things just as they are' - but again, it's not a gimmick or a shortcut but a mental and physical discipline based on clear comprehension of everything you do — Wayfarer

Given that you seem to have investigated these topics extensively, (amazing really!) I'm wondering if you can point me to any schools or teachers who have set aside the "mental and physical discipline" and the "comprehension of everything you do" parts. It's not my intent to argue such a route would be superior to anything else, though I may regrettably wander in to that, I'm mostly just intrigued by the notion.

To the degree that the problems being addressed arise from the medium of thought itself, that suggests remedies which may be radically simpler, and thus much more accessible to many more people. My practical nature is drawn to that, and my intellectual nature is intrigued by the possibility of sweeping all of the philosophy off the table in one efficient movement.

In both science and religion observation is typically considered a means to some other end, knowledge or insight etc. What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself? The desired end would still be a healthier mind, but we would have removed the middle men of insight, understanding, growth, change, transformation, and all that this entails.

It's impossible that I would be the first or only person to have such a notion, so I'm curious where others with such perspectives might reside. Zen? I have no idea.

Don't let me hijack the thread in to Hippyheadism. :-) Please change the subject when it's time to do so. I get carried away with things that interest me and may need some assistance.

Good God Mr. Way, you are truly well read, a good teacher for me in that regard.

But I think the Buddhist attitude is, not so much that thought is a problem, but attachment to the sensory realm by clinging to experience basically wanting or not wanting which takes place moment to moment and conditions every moment of experience/existence. — Wayfarer

Ok, so impression so far is that Buddhism would come down more on the "thought content is the problem" side, leading to an examination of that content, and corrections where needed. To what degree is that a fair summary, or not?

The Buddhist 'buddhi' means 'intellect' - not in the sense usually meant now as 'discursive intellect' but 'penetrating wisdom' which 'sees how things truly are'. — Wayfarer

I'm hearing you saying that by "seeing things as they truly are" the Buddhist observes the mind in action, sees content that is incorrect, and then by the act of seeing, the faulty content is repaired. Again, I'm attempting to translate your understandings in to my kind of language, and asking to you edit the translation as you feel necessary.

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried — G K Chesterton

Ok, that seems another way of phrasing the intent of my claim. Whatever the value of the Christian (or Buddhist) methodologies might be they have, for whatever reason, failed to transcend the human condition at sufficient scale so as to prevent insanity such as for example, nuclear weapons, and our boredom with them.

I'm not claiming they are worthless, for that is clearly not the case. Just debating the "transcend" notion, that's all.

Edit, nudge, manage, tweak, assist, yes. Transcend, no, imho.

I remember even at school people who had really clear plans. I was never like that — Jack Cummins

Sounds familiar! My college roommate decided he wanted to be a doctor about 3 weeks after we entered college together, and then he totally vanished in to the medical education system for about 15 years before emerging a surgeon. A HUGE decision made quickly and relatively easily.

50 years later I'm STILL trying to decide what I wanna be when I grow up. :-) Hmm, I think I'll be a person who never grows up. Yup, that's it!

Most conversations I have in real life simply have little or no depth and are rarely of my interest. It's not that the topics or the people involved are shallow, but rather most folks become long bored with a topic at the point for me where it begins to have signs of developing into an interesting topic. — Mayor of Simpleton

Sounds very familiar. Most people enjoy rather wandering random conversations about the mechanics of every day life, and the doings of other people of course. If you attempt to steer such conversations towards anything philosophical you have about one minute to do your thing before more or less being accused of dominating the conversation. Typically, at the first sight of philosophy folks will roll their eyes and smile, and perhaps even cheerfully say, "there he goes again" until the one minute time limit has expired, and then you'd best get back to the wandering random chit chat about the mechanics of everyday life.

My wife, whom I love dearly and could not live without, and I regularly have some bizarre conversations. Just as my mind is incurably fixated on big picture issues, her's is just as incurably focused on the daily life topics. Over 40 years we've learned how to bounce back and forth between the two modes at the speed of yack, and somehow mold the large and small together in to what, to us at least, seems like a coherent conversation.

The nature of nothing blends seamlessly in to the doing of the laundry, back to the philosophical foundations of religion before returning to it's time to dump the pasta. Round and round and round we go between the large and small, like a vibrating atom or the pulsing big bang / big crunch of the universe. Alpha and omega, tomato and tomawto, zero and one.

Here's one of my pet rant questions which perhaps members can examine through the lens of Buddhism, as I am not qualified to do that.

Do the problems we are attempting to resolve arise primarily from the content of thought, or from the nature of thought?

1) To what degree does human suffering arise from faulty thought content, bad ideas, incorrect understandings etc?

2) To what degree does such suffering arise from the medium of thought itself?

To the degree #1 is true, some form of philosophy seems the remedy.

To the degree #2 is true, would any form of philosophy be an act of poring more fuel on the fire?

For nerd people like us, we use reason, or what we consider to be reason, because we were born in to brains with a built-in inclination towards such operations.

It’s nevertheless ubiquitous in most traditional philosophy and religion that the human condition is somehow flawed or faulty. — Wayfarer

Which I am agreeing with. I was objecting only to labeling the fundamental problem as a sin, as that implies a choice, which none of us had. The Adam and Eve story is built upon the notion that they had a choice of whether to eat the "apple of knowledge". And so based on the assumption of choice, the word sin arises. But the human race did not have a choice about evolving in to thought based creatures, as it was that or death.

I'm not arguing with you here of course, but with my Catholic upbringing.

The main reason this is at odds with the modern sensibility, is that in many respects the aim of modern liberal culture is to accomodate and ameliorate the human condition, rather than to transcend it. — Wayfarer

Perhaps this is because there is very little evidence that transcending it is possible for more than maybe a very limited rare few? You know, we've had thousands of years of Buddhism and Christianity by now, and while I wouldn't say nothing has changed, there hasn't exactly been a revolution in the human psychological condition. Even if we were to agree that sitting with the guru under the pear tree can lead to revolutionary change, history has proven that this methodology is not scalable.

Thus, turning our attention to factors we can do something about seems to have a reasonable logic to it. That said, we do this largely through science. And science is very busy handing us more power than we can handle. Which probably will lead to a revolutionary change in the human condition, just not the kind we had in mind.

Educate yourself on your own presidential candidate rather than asking a stranger on the internet. — StreetlightX

Ah, a well done edit. Thank you for the upgrade. I'm attempting to upgrade here as well, as I agree I can be insufferable.

Please note that at no point have I asked you educate me. That's you reading in to my request that which you wish to see, and wish to be.

I'm instead asking that you make your case, which may be entirely reasonable, in a manner more suitable to your position as a mod on a philosophy forum. I like the forum. I'd like to see it thrive. You've chosen to be in a position of leadership. I'm agreeing with your choice, and asking you to do the job you have selected for yourself.

If I didn't think you were able, I wouldn't bring it up. But I know you are able. So I'm requesting that which I know you are capable of.

Thanks for listening. I've made my case, and said what I wished to say. I'm agreeable to let it go now and move on.

As a mod, like it or not, know it or not, you are setting the standard which represents the goals of the forum.

don't know why you think I'm blaming anyone. — StreetlightX

I do.

It's because your writing, on this topic at least, is little more than the chanting of emotional slogans spiced with generous doses of fantasy superiority poses. The message seems to be that you alone get it, while the rest of us need our pathetic cuddling.

Biden has had a long career. There are undoubtably decisions in that career which can be reasonably challenged. You've briefly mentioned a few things that merit inspection. But it seems you haven't bothered to make a careful reasoned case for why we should be concerned about any particular decision.

Why not pick one Biden decision which bothers you the most, and start a new thread to analyze it in detail. If you don't know the details, then say that and we can all build the record together.

However, it seems that some people, myself included, needed a little push or shove (so to speak) to break out of that. — TLCD1996

The "breaking out" notion is of interest here.

I still remember the moment 50 years ago when it first dawned on me that I don't actually have to be analytic in every moment of my life. I come from a very analytic family, and being that way was/is so utterly natural to me that it came as a revelation that analysis wasn't the only mental option. I'm happy that I broke out of blind full immersion and that other options became available. So far, so good.

That said, I do remain somewhat wary of going to war with what was installed in my DNA before I was born. I do see the downsides of being a nerd. But I also see that there are pros and cons to any kind of mind I might have been born in to. I'm wary of getting drawn in to a notion that there is some kind of perfection out there somewhere that I should be chasing.

Whatever flavor of human one might be sooner or later we're going to have to look in the mirror and accept what we see. I'm already here in this imperfect place. Might as well get on with saying ok to it.

Age might help. At some point we start running out of time for big journeys to somewhere else, which raises the logic of "be happy here and now", while there's still time.

Is it Buddhism that has a concept of "the middle way"? Perhaps that's what I'm trying to express without knowing the appropriate terminology?

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy — praxis

You and I both would seem to have a natural talent for getting under people's skins. The two of us together is annoying squared. Let's just take a break from engaging.

If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma? — praxis

I attempted to address this above. Alcoholics are the primary people in AA meetings. Thought-o-holics (like me) are often those most interested in exploring these topics. It's typically the sick who show up at the hospital.

Not a fixed rule which includes everyone, but true often enough to merit mention.

Speaking of bannings, could someone please remind me how to automate the ignoring of a user? I don't want them banned, just wish to "ban" them from my own view. It seems I'm stuck in an unconstructive loop and technology can probably help. Thank you.

So good that you’re unable to answer it, apparently — praxis

Consistently clogging thread after thread with these kind of lazy little gotcha quips which aren't actually clever is tiresome. Maybe you could try raising your game? I specifically offered to answer the question. I've already done so many times.

Example. I believe I could make an intelligent reasoned case which puts Nazism in a broader more objective context than "they be the evil bad guys". I know the mods don't want this, so I won't. But, imho, it is sometimes possible to offer credible arguments for that considered beyond the pale.

Well, I cant disagree with any if that. :up: — DingoJones

WTF? Isn't agreeing against the rules??? Ban him, ban him!!! :-)

If we ban people based on what they believe (rather than how they express it — DingoJones

Yes, agreed. To me, it's the expression that matters, not the belief. If a member is consistently incoherent, lazy, sloppy, and otherwise disrespectful of the reader's time then ok, probably time to go. On the other hand, if they can express outrageous views in an intelligent articulate manner, let's hear it.

I would agree that those who hold outrageous views often do so because their minds are naturally incoherent, lazy, sloppy etc. So lame beliefs and lame expression do often go together.

Good points! Yea, here we are, so we must be perceiving benefit. It's true that many miracles have happened online. One happened for me, so I know it's true.

Religion necessarily promises salvation — praxis

Imho, some religious practices can credibly promise and deliver "salvation", but probably not in the sweeping permanent existential manner which is often suggested.

Acts of kindness provide temporary "salvation" from the self obsession which is the primary source of our suffering. Techniques like meditation can as well.

The rational act is to let go of that which doesn't work for us.

For example, neither you nor I believe in the traditional salvation story of Christianity. So let it go already. Get over it. Give that kind of stuff up. Put it in the trash bin and walk away. Be loyal to your own stated position. Act on it. It's not rational to keep arguing with things you can do nothing about, and for which there is no evidence they will ever be of any use to you.

But you don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. You're clearly interested in religion, you engage the subject almost every day, and there are other aspects of it which we all can benefit from, without any need whatsoever to do so in a religious context.

Be rational. Carefully pick through the pile, find what works for you, and throw the rest away. Call whatever works whatever you want.

If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds? — praxis

When you're not distracted by being a Gotcha Monster you can ask good questions. This is one.

Truly not being snarky here, just asking, have you read my way too many posts regarding how thought operates by a process of division? Interested in that at all? If yes, I'll continue. If not, ok, no problem. I'm not an evangelist, I'm just overly enthusiastic sometimes.

In Christian religions the doctrine of the fall means that humans on the whole are marked by a basic imperfection, 'original sin', the overcoming of which is the purpose of the religion. — Wayfarer

The concept of sin is an unfortunate spin, as we had nothing to do with what is being described. But yea, otherwise that concept you refer to is indeed true, and indeed the purpose of religion. It's insights like this that prevent me from discarding Christianity with a lazy sweep of the hand.

In my view, the original "sin" is that as thought emerged in human beings we became distracted from the real world by the much smaller symbolic world within our minds. Imho, the Adam and Eve story speaks to this with it's reference to the "apple of knowledge" and "being expelled from the Garden of Eden".

The symbolic world is not bad or wrong, and is obviously a necessary part of being human. But the symbolic world contains much fewer psychic calories, if you will. And so a hunger arises. And from that hunger we will sometimes take unhelpful actions that might properly be labeled sin.

The point in both cases is that, left to your own devices, you will likely fail, because of this inherent imperfection, flaw, or fault. — Wayfarer

I would counter argue that it's not possible to fail in a big picture way because we're all melting back in to Whatever It Is no matter what we know or do. It's possible to fail in a temporary small picture way as it's true that we may, or rather almost certainly will, experience unnecessary suffering by not managing our minds in an effective manner.

I'm enjoying the Buddhism education which is being provided, and hope members will continue with it.
It's true I remain somewhat skeptical of all the goal setting and effort agendas etc, but well, so what?

And the reasoning behind that might be that "having manners" and "being polite" is seen to be hypocritical and just a facade while the "online" way of talking is more "honest" — ssu

I think there is some truth that talking in an anonymous environment where there are few consequences, and none of any consequence, can be more honest, and thus more instructive.

I've been a forum addict since about the first day they appeared on the Net, and during that experience have discovered my um, inner asshole, that I wasn't previously so clear existed.

There's a scene near the beginning of the movie Devil's Advocate (great film!) where the defense attorney mercilessly rips a young girl to shreds on the stand to free his client. I can be that guy sometimes online, and unlike the attorney in the film, it's not my job to do so.

I just do it for fun.

Kinda scary that.

It might reach a point where we have to whip some people in order to get kindness from them. — Konkai

He he.... :-) Made me smile. I'm probably an Internet psychopath.

If you're concerned, we could change your username now and within a few days or weeks, any connection between your real name and this website will disappear, because the relevant pages in Google's index will be crawled again, and the old name effectively overwritten. Probably. — jamalrob

My understanding as well.

So while sometimes it's good to have these labels, other times maybe not. — TLCD1996

Perhaps this helps?

The purpose of all nouns is to create conceptual divisions. This is how thought works, it divides a single unified reality in to conceptual objects. This is clearly a useful process, but it comes at the price of significant distortion because reality is not divided in a neat and tidy way such as nouns imply.

We have the noun "tree" which implies an object separate from other objects. But trees are not separate from everything else, but are instead intimately connected to their environment. As example, their continued existence depends entirely on a star which is 93 million miles away.

Praxis wants to nail down what "thing "Buddhism is, he wants to confine it within a noun, mostly so he can debunk it because that's his goal on every subject. But Buddhism is not a single thing. Nor is Christianity. Nor is anything in all of reality, except in our minds.

The title of this thread has been useful in generating some interesting discussion. But it would be wise not to get too anal about it.

Speaking for myself, the first step to learning how to meditate was to stop asking so many questions about the "khandhas" or "dependent origination" and just focus on my breathing. That helped a lot and was extremely encouraging. — TLCD1996

This is cool, like it. I sense that a lot of us who get involved in such subjects are people like myself with overactive analytic minds. I'm guessing that some teachers deliberately spin up a bunch of concepts for us to chew on just to help us get in the door.

And, I'm guessing such overactive analysis could be useful if we analyze our way to an understanding of the limits of such analysis. Not the most efficient method of travel perhaps, but one does what one has to do.

To the degree my theory above is true, it comes with some unfortunate downsides. Many religions can come to be dominated by those who are most in need of a religion. As example, the best Christians are probably those too busy serving to have time for writing sermons, leaving the field open for those of us, who, um, enjoy words rather too much.

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel. — praxis

Thank you for chanting your usual dogmas.

But ok, you're right, in that getting what we want might make us, um, less cooperative with other humans. That may already be happening.

If I can cook up digital Diane Lane to order any time I want, what's my motivation to have patience with inconvenient real world human contacts? It seems cooperation is often built upon a foundation of mutual need, and if the need is removed.....?

This is all very real for me. Except for my lovely wife whom I adore, I spend all my time either on the net doing exactly what I want, or in the woods where I've learned to bond with nature. What do I need real world humans for at this point? Answer unclear...

where we continuously have to remind everyone that their allegiance ought be to the common good and not the various tribes that make us up — Hanover

I recently heard an analysis of the pandemic around the world which claimed that it is the societies with the most allegiance to the common good that are doing the best. As evidence, apparently they are doing much better in Africa than expected, and much worse in America than expected. According to the theory, it's not technology and money that makes the difference, but social cohesion.

If that's true, and if Biden wins, the next step would seem to be for we lefties to reach out to Trump's base. Listen, show respect, seek areas of common agreement. Here's one example.

The population of the United States has doubled in my lifetime. The population of Florida has grown 7X, if my memory is working. It's not unreasonable for us to question how much farther in this direction we wish to go. It's not unreasonable to wish to live in a country with enforceable borders.

But then your last question wants to bring what must necessarily be beyond the known within the known — unenlightened

Ok, yes, it's an exploration, bringing the unknown in to the known. That's a good way to put it.

What makes the unknown interesting is my ignorance of it. And I am seeking to destroy the ignorance. Which will in turn kill the interest.

Is that somewhere near your point?