Nagarjuna an Alchemist

Nagarjuna, of course, was not Tibetan.

His use of ‘sunyata’ was unique to him (though he was influenced by tradition, as are we all); later, it was elaborated upon, not just by Tibetans, but by Indians; therefore, the Tibetan idea of ‘sunyata’, is not necesarily the same as Nagarjuna’s original idea of same. Indeed, the very deceptiveness of ‘words’ was integral to his efforts (and of other early ‘buddhists’)–and to the efforts of ‘the buddha’ (a great trick of dogmatic movements I am very wary of, is to take the teachings of spiritual super-geeks/freaks and make it into ‘something else’–I am not implicating you in this at all though, please note! I’m just asserting my essentially defensive, cornered-animal, sceptical stance. Did not Sakyamuni and other weirdos advocate such?).

I feel there is an important difference between ‘meditative arts’, as they are developed within a given culture or community (which I hold as inestimably precious and worthy of devoted study and practice), and what a certain person himself or herself realised/attained, and meant by his or her terms of reference.

Was Nagarjuna a ‘buddhist’, for example? To wit: He was not a buddhist; not, not a buddhist; not both; not neither. Also, he could have been attributed to have been all of the preceding; as Nagarjuna detailed in the book mentioned in its translated title below, the positive to the oft-quoted fourfold negative, is also plausible… Of course things ‘exist’… But not as ‘fixed entities’… Yet, insofar as they are experienced as ‘fixed entities’, they do exist as such… And the universe DOES obey certain definite laws…which are maleable, and which, yet, are trumped by ‘the absolute’ (“(which) transcends all determinations, yet does not exclude anything determinate, and therefore is itself undeniable.”). Of course you know this.

I would refer you to the book I’ve quoted often on this forum: Nagarjuna’s Philosophy (a book which may or may not be one that is known by Tibetan teachers of buddhism–translated by Krishniah Venkata Ramanen, who was educated in India, England, and China–in that it was only available in a Chinese edition).

The mindstates you mentioned are natural to human experience, I would submit; different names can be given to them, but they are accesible to any person who has the gumption to explore his or her experience. And where does the impulse to explore come from (which then leads to classificatory systems)? Questions like this greatly intrigue and motivate me. At the same time I am a devotee of traditional classificatory systems, which I lean on, and find to be a tremendous boon.

Simon