Your Argument is Invalid

[Pluto]

Nāgārjuna is famous for arguing that his philosophy was not a view, and that he in fact did not take any position... [he] states:

If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all. If there were anything to be observed through direct perception and the other instances [of valid cognition], it would be something to be established or rejected. However, since no such thing exists, I cannot be criticized.[83]

...Nāgārjuna criticized those whose mind held any "positions and beliefs", including the view of emptiness. As Nāgārjuna says: "The Victorious Ones have announced that emptiness is the relinquishing of all views. Those who are possessed of the view of emptiness are said to be incorrigible."

---

Therefore, according to perhaps the greatest and most influential 2nd century scholar, all positions help by all people are inherently flawed. No doubt Socrates would concur. Such is the paradox of true wisdom.

Unfortunately, this also means that your argument, no matter what it may be, is invalid.

​

 

[Jay Sea]

Is it possible that each of the following statements are statements of a position?

- If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault.

- Since I have no position, I am not at fault at all.

- If there were anything to be observed through direct perception and the other instances [of valid cognition], it would be something to be established or rejected.

- However, since no such thing exists, I cannot be criticized.

 

[Pluto]

Is it possible that each of the following statements are statements of a position?

A most interesting question.

The proper context is contained within the broader texts and commentary. I've cherry-picked those comments from a vast tradition that the finest minds of Indian philosophy have spent thousands of years debating and evolving.

From my research, I have been quite humbled by what a complex topic 'emptiness' has turned out to be, and want to be upfront that I am not nearly well-versed enough to present any quality commentary. I can only put my own amateurish spin on the situation. So with that said...

Is no position a position? I see two possibilities:
1) It is like Switzerland's neutrality in WWII, which entailed a well-defined stance of refusing to ally with either belligerent party, or
2) Something far more abstract, like asking a tube of toothpaste about its preferred presidential candidate.

The other obvious question is how a lack of position can turn into so many books, arguments, lectures and even entire traditions, namely Tibetan Buddhism.

I believe we are talking about the second option. To truly understand what is being said would mean being in a more advanced state of consciousness. Until that state is attained, the purpose of these philosophies and argumentation pertains to a subtractive process. Removing false ideas to reveal an underlying, indescribable truth.

For argument's sake, a flower is an immaculate life form that grows, lives and dies in accordance with natural laws. (Even Jesus made a similar comment.) A flower has no position on any issue; no enemies, no friends, no worries, no fears, no memories and so forth.

By contrast, the problematic human condition – minds of neuroticism, dysfunction, aggression, confusion, violence, anxiety, etc. – is directed towards enlightenment by the gradual, or occasionally sudden, erosion of the overlay of the mind. Ironically, the simple, natural state of pure being is ultimately what all Eastern philosophy, despite its vast complexity, is trying to speak about.

 

[Jay Sea]

most interesting indeed

 

[Pluto]

 

[yellowjester]

Did the Hindus sentence him to death too, for pointing out how ignorant they were, like the Athenians did with Socrates, or were they more receptive to these teachings?

 

[Pluto]

Did the Hindus sentence him to death too, for pointing out how ignorant they were, like the Athenians did with Socrates, or were they more receptive to these teachings?

This is a great point also.

There was definitely a battle of ideas in 1st-millennium India which eventually gave rise to all the variations and sub-schools of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist thought that we see today. It is somewhat analogous to the modern world's geographic history, which is largely a story of Europeans with ships and guns (technology taken from China) causing bloodsheed in the name of world domination. Except, being rooted in sophisticated intellectualism, Indian debate evolved ideas without the Western world's history of violence.

As for why, I nearly made a post on this topic but never got around to it. Briefly, the answer comes from the very broad and complex nature of Hinduism itself. It is difficult to give a true definition of what it means to be Hindu; there are countless deities, yet there are even atheists and an overwhelming compatibility with Buddhism and other 'competing' traditions.

I've heard Hinduism described as a system that encourages the individual to seek truth wherever it may be found, in contrast to the familiar Western message of, "Obey us or be killed/go to hell/etc.." In a way, Eastern philosophy is the spiritual version of the scientific method; seek truth and eschew non-truth. No surprise that the Eastern traditions end up light-years ahead compared to Western dogmatic religions.

If there's one basic Hindu concept that is universal, it is Brahman. That is the name given for the sum total of the universe or the underlying substratum of reality; it is 'God' except that nothing is separate from it. Implicitly, it is all of our true nature. Because it is not a particular 'thing' that can easily be conceptualised or sought, all the gods, gurus and scriptures arise to form a bridge with the goal of reaching that realisation, as in enlightenment. The religion is a vehicle.

All the subsequent complexity derives from the numerous paths that one can take to realise this underlying truth of reality. The most direct pathway is nonduality but there are others. That's a topic in itself.