Erden Miray Yazgan Yalkın

According to Nagarjuna Nirvana which was advised by Buddha as absolute Truth is sunyata (emptiness). Nagarjuna defends that for understanding of the subject sunyata (emptiness) first it must be make clear and comprehend that what sunya (being empty) is. As it was mentioned before one by one every being, even emptiness itself is empty. Here what means by empty is something not being in something, being empty concern of being non-exist. As stated in Nagarjuna, this thing which is not being exist in other thing itself is svabhava (substance). Shortly by Nagarjuna being empty be identified as not including substance in itself. In this direction Nagarjuna asserts in his MMK that non-of the beings have substances in themselves. In line with Nyaya doctrine svabhava is something that does not depend on anything or occur, non-changeable, nonconceptual, non-comprehensible, stable, ineffable something which does not contains any varieties. According to Nagarjuna just because of that it is not possible to say anything about its existency. So, no bhavas (beings) includes svabhavas. As Nagarjuna mentions, being empty does not mean non existency at all. Emptiness itself is the cause of interdepended existency. Nagarjuna says that every being does asset win in some determined relations between each other. In other way to put this, everything coarise contingently and dependently to eachother. These conditional situations do appear as qualities, reasons, results, and etc. Every being does come to being with some qualities and combined between each other.

5 thoughts on “Erden Miray Yazgan Yalkın

  1. shinichi Post author


    Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250 CE) was an Indian Mahāyāna Buddhist thinker, scholar-saint and philosopher. He is widely considered one of the most important Buddhist philosophers.


    Nāgārjuna’s major thematic focus is the concept of śūnyatā (translated into English as “emptiness”) which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anātman “not-self” and pratītyasamutpāda “dependent origination”, to refute the metaphysics of some of his contemporaries. For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are “selfless” or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabhāva, literally “own-being”, “self-nature”, or “inherent existence” and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.

    Nāgārjuna means by real any entity which has a nature of its own (svabhāva), which is not produced by causes (akrtaka), which is not dependent on anything else (paratra nirapeksha).

    Chapter 24 verse 14 of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā provides one of Nāgārjuna’s most famous quotations on emptiness and co-arising:

    sarvaṃ ca yujyate tasya śūnyatā yasya yujyate
    sarvaṃ na yujyate tasya śūnyaṃ yasya na yujyate
    All is possible when emptiness is possible.
    Nothing is possible when emptiness is impossible.

    As part of his analysis of the emptiness of phenomena in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Nāgārjuna critiques svabhāva in several different concepts. He discusses the problems of positing any sort of inherent essence to causation, movement, change and personal identity. Nāgārjuna makes use of the Indian logical tool of the tetralemma to attack any essentialist conceptions. Nāgārjuna’s logical analysis is based on four basic propositions:

    All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
    All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
    All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
    All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor negation

    To say that all things are ’empty’ is to deny any kind of ontological foundation; therefore Nāgārjuna’s view is often seen as a kind of ontological anti-foundationalism or a metaphysical anti-realism.

    Understanding the nature of the emptiness of phenomena is simply a means to an end, which is nirvana. Thus Nāgārjuna’s philosophical project is ultimately a soteriological one meant to correct our everyday cognitive processes which mistakenly posits svabhāva on the flow of experience.

    Some scholars such as Fyodor Shcherbatskoy and T.R.V. Murti held that Nāgārjuna was the inventor of the Shunyata doctrine; however, more recent work by scholars such as Choong Mun-keat, Yin Shun and Dhammajothi Thero has argued that Nāgārjuna was not an innovator by putting forth this theory, but that, in the words of Shi Huifeng, “the connection between emptiness and dependent origination is not an innovation or creation of Nāgārjuna”.

  2. shinichi Post author








  3. shinichi Post author


    by 石飛 道子



    第一章 龍樹伝説と龍樹の主要作品
    1 謎の人物龍樹
    2 『大般涅槃経』は道しるべ
    3 龍樹の誕生・龍樹の出家
    4 龍樹の悟り
    5 龍樹の活躍とその死
    6 龍樹の主著『中論頌』
    7 仏教論師の仕事
    8 大乗菩薩の仕事

    第二章 ブッダの縁起と龍樹の中道
    1 論理と法の地で
    2 縁起と無我
    3 中道と空
    4 有無二辺の中道は菩薩の道?
    5 「有る」という極端と「無い」という極端
    6 想いやことばの世界――戯論
    7 虚無論者か詭弁論者か
    8 ブッダは何も説かなかった?

    第三章 中道の論理と空の世界(聖者の世界へ)
    1 後のものを先にしてはならない
    2 あるがままに観察すると
    3 想いを想うと
    4 存在(バーヴァ)と自性(スヴァバーヴァ)
    5 自性があるとき他性がある
    6 中道というものの見方
    7 空・無相・無作の三解脱門
    8 聖者の境地――無生法忍

    第四章 仮設と四句分別の論理(凡夫の世界へ)
    1 縁起と空性と仮設
    2 『般若心経』も空性を説く
    3 執って仮設すること
    4 観世音菩薩は空性を語る
    5 沙門の道と菩薩の道
    6 人々の利益のために
    7 一切の見解を捨て去ること
    8 去る者と去らざる者
    9 去る者は去らない
    10 四句分別

    第五章 無諍の立場と菩薩行
    1 思想の花咲く龍樹の時代
    2 ほんとうに論争はあったのか
    3 龍樹の好敵手チャラカとニヤーヤ学派(無諍の立場)
    4 「自性」のもとに整えられた哲学説(一切智者の視点)
    5 菩薩行と願
    6 菩薩は涅槃の証をとらず
    7 龍樹以後、仏法を伝えた人々
    8 中国、日本への影響――八宗の祖師
    9 親鸞と易行道


  4. shinichi Post author


    by 一郷正道




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *