Nagarjuna: musings on Mulamadhyamaka Karika - Chapter one

Pratyaya pariksha
1. Need for a cause is obvious. What is the interrelation of the cause and effect ?
An existent arisen from oneself would make the process redundant, and hence incorrect.
Arisen from another: If A was said to arise from B, when A is already existent, can we say B is the cause unless we brought in our memory, sanskara, equivalently substance view, Atta ? At present when A is, the action of B being a cause is redundant and not correct.
Arisen from both: would have the same fate being a mixture of both the ideas above.
Na vidyate -not evident- The Ariya is suggesting the way to look. It is like: is it not ? for us with a self view, the answer is no. So, why not ? there .. the self view comes to light. It starts making good sense when this is seen.

2. The four conditions correspond to the arising, existence, cessation, and the sustenance of any existent.

3. The existent is seen with a self nature for us. He is helping us look deeper. This self nature of the existent is not 'evident' in the conditions. Nor they seem to have any self that is completely other to the seen self nature in the existent. Something same yet different.

4. Activity is introduced to address the interactions between the conditions that would lead to the arising of the existent. Activity not constituted nor not constituted of conditions doesn't have an individual self. One would ascribe a self either by its existence, or its functionality. The latter is addressed in this verse. We would ascribe absolutism to conditions if activity constituted of conditions and absolutism to conditions if conditions constituted activity. The cause wouldn't be, without its potency to be one. But, the potency wouldn't be, without it being the cause either. Hence they are said to be not constituted nor not constituted of each other.

5. It is not correct to call anything a condition until the existent has arisen. But till then, it is not considered as a non-condition also - because we ascribe it a sense of self and hence continuity and 'predict' the existent. This is false view.

6. If something doesn't exist, naming a condition for it is not correct. If something is already existent, naming anything as a condition for it is rewinding its genesis in memory and hence not correct. Hence it turns out that naming a condition is not correct for an existent as well as a non-existent.

7. Producing cause: An existent is not produced, as its already there. A non existent would not be produced either. Hence a cause which produces is not correct. Hypothesize of a producing cause can lead to absolutist theories.

8. Objective Support : When an existent is seen, a supporting cause is not independently identified. Rather, when the supporting causes are independently identified, the existent no longer retains its 'self' nature. Eg. the cart simile from Milinda panha. A cart is said to be supported by wheels. But when wheels are independently identified, the rest is no longer a cart. Or a table being supported by its legs. Hence a supporting condition is not clear.

9. Immediate condition: Immediate condition before the arising of existent is incorrect as the existent is itself not defined. Immediate condition after ceasing of existent is incorrect as once ceased, ascribing any condition is not correct.

10. We perceive existent with self nature. As they have a self nature, they would not come to be because some other exists: the Buddhas words on dependent arising would be wrong. As the Buddhas words are true, existent should be perceived without the self nature. Again, another instance when the Ariya points the way to look at the errors in our perception.

11. When the conditions are separated the existent is not produced. Nor is it produced just by the combination of the conditions. If existent were a combination of the conditions would lead to hypothesis of an essence in the conditions becoming the existent. Bhaven implies self less ness of the existent.

12. However, if the effect were non existent in conditions, and were to spring forth from the same, any random cause could give rise to any effect, which is not the case. This sentence makes logical sense only because we presuppose a self to the effect ! Only if existences had self, a search of the effect in the cause, and a finding or a non finding would lead to either complications. In other words, search of an effect in a cause is actually search of the self of the effect in the cause.

13. The effect comes forth from conditions. Conditions are not made by themselves, they too had
other conditions to arise. How can we say that the effect arises from the condition, condition being a starting point ? deeper still, what is a condition other than a convention ? Thus, the effect is also a convention.

14. An effect made of conditions is not evident. It is not seen in the conditions nor by combination of the conditions, and is a seen as a convention. Effect constituting of non conditions is too not evident. Hence, the conditions that are called conditions supposing the existence of the effect are also not evident - and so are non conditions. And if they are evident, it is self view in action.

Nagarjuna: musings on Mulamadhyamaka Karika - Dedication

These are the thoughts that occurred on reading the translation by Kalupahana's work.
Dedicatory verses:
The eight characteristics: non-ceasing non-arising, non-annihilation non-permanence, non- identity, non-difference, non-appearance and non-disappearance.
It is disturbing to read words non-arising, non-permanence, but the other two, non-ceasing and non-annihilation pass through without ripples. Why ? due to the substance or the inherent 'atta', 'athman' view - Ariya Nagarjuna is pointing to that. Thus the Ariya is pointing a way to look- the answer one finds is for ourselves.
In a balanced state of existence, one would feel the same reading all the eight. The opinion that the Ariya is presenting a negative logic is also, in the same footing, not balanced. Nor does he deconstruct everything, nor does he propose a new construct- the paticha samutpada- dependent co arising. He is simply stating the nature of the dharmas.
Pratitya samutpadam prapanchopashamam sivam: The state of appeasement of proliferations is the auspicious. They are not different, later it is stated that the dependent co arising and sunyata are one and the same. The path is the goal.

The logic of negation

Why is that negation is used as the principal tool in Buddhism & related train of thoughts ?

I think it is because what we percieve something as positive if that is in sync with the strcture of our thoughts. This structure is inherently based on substance view, view about an individual existence.

As the purpose of the above said ideologies is to point to the fallacies in the substance view, all such arguements look negative. However, if seen from a non substance perspective, they are not.

JK: awareness

When one puts an effort to be aware of oneself, all our moods, thoughts and issues come to be seen. Anger, frustrations, irritations, elation .. all ..

one also observes a certain pattern to it. This is the same way one is going to react, we know the 'memory chunks' from where many of the reactions arise. There is repetitiveness, and although it is a very different and new world, it is sort of tiring and also boring. And one also wouldn't know if that pattern is actual, or is mind hyping up some issues...

So this is also a form of interpretation. This observation would, instead of releasing, would strengthen our impressions.

This form of awareness is on the background of our impressions and the conditions on which our self the personality has been built. So, one needs to be aware of the self together with the moods and patterns. To be aware of the phenomena, and the activity of interpretation at the same time.

This is to be aware without any background, any base case. It is to be instantaneous- awareness of the moods as well as the self- or otherwise another pattern would form during meditation.

It is to say that the past meets the present and stops. That is the actuality.

Thoughts on JK: Precipice

Suppose we anticipate a tough day in the office. Before we start off, we think of the ways to tackle the various issues that may come up. There are various methods to handle, many ways to solve the problems. All of those methods, would be invariably somethings that we know will work: we have seen this work before, or can interpolate from similar situations. Thus the methods are derived from our past experiences, our past impressions.

It is important note that all the impressions have been created from the response from outside.

So what are we actually doing ? what is in 'us' to solve the problem ? How are we ever going to solve anything ?

There is a precipice here.

If we see this completely, there is no energy wasted in building methods or solutions. Hence one sees the problem completely, and there is immediate action on it. There is perception and immediate action.

Thoughts on J Krishnamurti: Time

There is a concept of time inherent in all our actions. For doing a task, there is a sequential manner we develop and execute.

We use the same method in our mental realms too. If we like something, we expect the same actions next time to take us to the same sensations, stimuli and satisfaction. But how correct is this ?

If one understands that bringing in time, a future, a method, is wrong, one is relieved from the tangle of expectations, partial gratifications and disappointments. There is only perception and immediate action.

When we think on solving a problem, we are actually postponing them. Taking the mind away from the issue to a method of solving a problem, is the problem. Otherwise, as soon as the problem arises, it is dissolved.

Musings on J Krishnamurti: Myself

There is the object and there is the observation. The personality, the 'me' arises between and interprets the observation according to our conditioning. The 'me' is the structure arisen due to all our impressions, ideologies, lifestyle, dreams, hurts and all that has made us what we are, in our life. It is our life reflected. It is 'I'. Also, all our decisions, intentions, and subsequent action
are all formulated as outcome of our personality, the myself. It is the aspect most intimate to us - we would never compromise on it.

This self has been formulated by impressions, the response we have obtained in the past from the environment. The presence of the outside factors are so evident in this self that it is in actuality a product of the outside than oneself. At this level, the 'oneself' is also questionable: is it in the genes ? again a result of some mutation of our biological parents..

Thus what is so much the 'me' is completely the 'other', the outside.