[Buddha-l] MMK 25.09 (was: as Swami goes...)

[Richard Hayes]

On Apr 30, 2010, at 13:46, "Dan Lusthaus" <vasubandhu at earthlink.net>  
wrote:

>>
>
> Might someone's
> language subliminally commit them to a svabhavic reification without  
> their
> realizing it?

I don't think so.

> If that were not the case, MMK would have been unnecessary.

I think MMK is unnecessary. It is a putative antidote to an alleged  
disease that very few people actually have.



>
> If I understand your further clarifications, you are now saying that  
> someone
> else might have this or that "idea" about a process (bhāva) -- which 
>  aren't
> necessarily "ideas" that you personally share.

No, you still don't understand my clarification. But it's not  
important. Drop it.


> The question was not whether you personally are committed to either  
> or both
> alternatives in MMK 25.9, but what those ideas themselves are, and  
> how they
> relate to each other. Did you -- "a Buddhist who knows that taking  
> things
> personally is a form of moha" -- think we were talking about your  
> personal
> belief rather than your proposed interpretation of the karika?

All along I have been talking about the verse. I have offered my  
interpretation of it. Take it or leave it.


> Doesn't the karika itself structurally and conceptually require  
> that, since
> it is the bhāva-coming-and-going that can be seen samsarically or
> nirvanically, yes?

You'll have to ask Nagarjuna.

> The bhāva-coming-and-going upadayicly or pratitya-ly -- when not-So  
> the identity between the two views of process is not a matter of your
> personal choice or preference, but part of how the karika is  
> constructed.
> No?

So your claim is that Nagarjuna was unable to free himself from  
svabhavic thinking. Good. I think we are finally in agreement.