On the path that has been traveled, there is no moving,
On the path that has not been traveled, there is no moving either,
And in some other place besides the path that has been traveled and the path that has not,
Motions are not perceptible in way at all.
-Nagarjuna
We often think things exist because they seem to move from here to there. Trimming my trees today, I was quite convinced that the branches existed as I moved them from the back yard to the front yard. But, Nagarjuna is asking all of us to consider a different possibility. There is no movement on the path that has been traveled because that path is no longer here. There is no movement on the path that will be traveled because it is not here yet. And, in between, there is no place for movement to happen at all. At any given moment in time, where is the movement? How do I relate to this on a small time scale (small movements)? Can I understand this on a larger scale (getting from here to work)? Sometimes thoughts seem like they are moving which seems a bit strange on a relative level. We couldn't point to our thought relative to something else and show that it is moving. Yet, we label that as movement. If, at an absolute level, there is nothing different between a thought and a tree branch, why treat them differently?
Motions are not perceptible in way at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat does he mean by way?
I am pretty sure Nagarjuna would say that any method that we use to convince ourselves that movement is happening doesn't really hold any water, ultimately. So, that is probably what he means by way. We could measure movement, record it, etc, but none of those methods ultimately prove anything according to these teachings. They can be refuted. One thing that can help sometimes is that we generally think of things as real in three ways: singular, lasting, and independent. So, these arguments against things as real tend to address those three qualities. That's my take on it.
DeleteOkay, so now I want to know what you mean by singular? As in there's only one of those, so it must be real? There's only one me therefore I must exist?
ReplyDeleteI think they are saying that we tend to treat things in the world on a daily basis (not seeing the ultimate nature) as though there's one of them, they aren't really changing, and that they don't particularly depend on anything else. For example, there's only one of me. I tend to think of myself as the same from one moment to the next even if I know intellectually that over years I will change. And, if I go somewhere, the people or things that were with me an hour ago don't necessarily follow. It's our naive first take on the world. Personally, I have the most hang ups on the singular nature of something real and fewer on the other two qualities.
Delete