Emptiness can be properly seen through the understanding of Nāgārjuna’s the Perfection of Wisdom, for it proclaims that all things are truly empty. Nāgārjuna wrote the Mūlamadhyama-kakārikā, which gives the foundation to the Indian Buddhist sector of Madhyamaka in philosophical terms. His analysis in philosophy conveys his main views that all things are empty (śūnya) or devoid intrinsic nature (svabhāva). Nāgārjuna’s point in his writings is to prove that there is more to the primary Buddhist idea that “there is no separately existing, enduring self, and that the person is a conceptual construction. (Katsura and Siderits 1)” Nāgārjuna’s initiative is, therefore, to defend to defend the assertion and provide a philosophical defense to the idea of emptiness in all things. I intend to prove the emptiness of happiness and the
…show more content…
Nothing isn 't real…but nothing is empty. In order to prove that some “X” exists essentially, one would need to not refer to some other “non-X.” When one finds the true identity of some “X,” then one understands the ultimate nature/reality of that thing. If this true identity of some “X” is proved to be exhaustive, and essence-less, then “X” has no ultimate nature or essence. This “X” is empty of essence, which is the true definition of emptiness.
Using Nāgārjuna’s analysis of Desire and the one who Desires, a more exact logic can be made of Happiness and the Happy Mind (Katsura and Siderits 65).
If the one who is happy existed prior to and without happiness, then desire would be dependent on that; there being the one who pursues happiness, happiness would then exist.
This first statement touches on the difference, as well as the similarity, between a state and a subject. For two things to exist and come to be at the same time, if dependent on one another, is completely ludicrous. Something that is ultimately real would come into being by itself, without and interdependence upon anything other than
Nothing isn 't real…but nothing is empty. In order to prove that some “X” exists essentially, one would need to not refer to some other “non-X.” When one finds the true identity of some “X,” then one understands the ultimate nature/reality of that thing. If this true identity of some “X” is proved to be exhaustive, and essence-less, then “X” has no ultimate nature or essence. This “X” is empty of essence, which is the true definition of emptiness.
Using Nāgārjuna’s analysis of Desire and the one who Desires, a more exact logic can be made of Happiness and the Happy Mind (Katsura and Siderits 65).
If the one who is happy existed prior to and without happiness, then desire would be dependent on that; there being the one who pursues happiness, happiness would then exist.
This first statement touches on the difference, as well as the similarity, between a state and a subject. For two things to exist and come to be at the same time, if dependent on one another, is completely ludicrous. Something that is ultimately real would come into being by itself, without and interdependence upon anything other than