Good luck. It's public domain material so the language is somewhat distant and formal, as it must be in such a venue. I never mastered the sunyata (emptiness) teachings of the Mahayana, nor Nagarjuna's dialectic, which I will always regret.
The Mahayana stands between unenlightenment and enlightenment. The first level (Hinayana) deconstructs solidity/self/reality in fascinating, though very sober, ways. Then Mahayana represents some sort of breakthrough where the emphasis shifts from deconstruction to leaping, soaring, aspiring, expressing boundless generosity and wisdom as one breaks free from entrapment and enters a much larger world. The word 'Maha' means Great as in not small, not petty, not enclosed, not bound, not entrapped.
Tantra is how to do fruition, how to be a Mahayanist from the accomplished perspective of having already 'crossed over'. So there is a three-fold journey being described which is partly the truth and partly a heuristic device.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is conventional reality with self and other and the phenomenal world. A table is a table. But you learn that actually, it's mainly an idea of a table that you perceive and also that the table itself has no inherent existence as such unless you label it so. The same with our bodies, our minds, our environments, our passions, our pains, our suffering, our entire lives etc. Virtue must be cultivated and strict discipline engendered.
But then, after deconstructing, there can be a breakthrough. It's not all about 'me' it's about everything, the world, especially others. On the heart level there can be generosity, expansiveness, freedom, courage, wisdom. One can develop transcendent virtues and serve all sentient beings tirelessly.
There is still some sort of project or aspiration with that approach. So the final level is bringing things back down to the kitchen sink again, but now as a somewhat accomplished master. One can be a good father or good carpenter but also one can see clearly the endless dance of self and other, form and formless playing all the time in all situations with all people. Here the difference between confusion and wisdom is seen as somewhat deluded, or illusory. Also here wisdom and confusion arise together coemergently. The meaning of tantra is continuity, which is that wisdom and confusion are two sides of the same coin. There is no path, not really, nor anything to achieve. And yet there is a great difference between someone who has mastered this and someone just starting out, for whom the mountain is just a mountain.
Something like that. From that tradition's POV of course (not saying it's the only valid one). So Nagarjuna fits in as the philosophical Mahayana breakthrough artist par excellence. It's advanced, specialist stuff. Someone needs to master him and then go through Husserl and Heidegger etc. to see if they can be mutually explained in some sort of common vocabulary.
There are great differences between Western philosophical and Eastern contemplative traditions but there are also deep commonalities. Hard to find though through the thick, dense forest of different languages and approaches which such different languages express.
You might find this article interesting. About the non-existence of the Self on the absolute level following Nagarjuna's dialectical approach. https://iep.utm.edu/madhyamaka-buddhist-philosophy/
Thanks. I will work through this slowly and confer with Andreas, then report back.
Good luck. It's public domain material so the language is somewhat distant and formal, as it must be in such a venue. I never mastered the sunyata (emptiness) teachings of the Mahayana, nor Nagarjuna's dialectic, which I will always regret.
The Mahayana stands between unenlightenment and enlightenment. The first level (Hinayana) deconstructs solidity/self/reality in fascinating, though very sober, ways. Then Mahayana represents some sort of breakthrough where the emphasis shifts from deconstruction to leaping, soaring, aspiring, expressing boundless generosity and wisdom as one breaks free from entrapment and enters a much larger world. The word 'Maha' means Great as in not small, not petty, not enclosed, not bound, not entrapped.
Tantra is how to do fruition, how to be a Mahayanist from the accomplished perspective of having already 'crossed over'. So there is a three-fold journey being described which is partly the truth and partly a heuristic device.
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.
First there is conventional reality with self and other and the phenomenal world. A table is a table. But you learn that actually, it's mainly an idea of a table that you perceive and also that the table itself has no inherent existence as such unless you label it so. The same with our bodies, our minds, our environments, our passions, our pains, our suffering, our entire lives etc. Virtue must be cultivated and strict discipline engendered.
But then, after deconstructing, there can be a breakthrough. It's not all about 'me' it's about everything, the world, especially others. On the heart level there can be generosity, expansiveness, freedom, courage, wisdom. One can develop transcendent virtues and serve all sentient beings tirelessly.
There is still some sort of project or aspiration with that approach. So the final level is bringing things back down to the kitchen sink again, but now as a somewhat accomplished master. One can be a good father or good carpenter but also one can see clearly the endless dance of self and other, form and formless playing all the time in all situations with all people. Here the difference between confusion and wisdom is seen as somewhat deluded, or illusory. Also here wisdom and confusion arise together coemergently. The meaning of tantra is continuity, which is that wisdom and confusion are two sides of the same coin. There is no path, not really, nor anything to achieve. And yet there is a great difference between someone who has mastered this and someone just starting out, for whom the mountain is just a mountain.
Something like that. From that tradition's POV of course (not saying it's the only valid one). So Nagarjuna fits in as the philosophical Mahayana breakthrough artist par excellence. It's advanced, specialist stuff. Someone needs to master him and then go through Husserl and Heidegger etc. to see if they can be mutually explained in some sort of common vocabulary.
There are great differences between Western philosophical and Eastern contemplative traditions but there are also deep commonalities. Hard to find though through the thick, dense forest of different languages and approaches which such different languages express.
But so it is in the Human Realm...