Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
[b]As I said earlier, Buddha as a human being should have shut
up.
I just wonder whether you are aware that even speaking to fellow
human beings the word "shut up" is usually considered rude. If this
happens to religions which are less tolerant, you can imagine how
people would respond to this. In discussions, there ought to be
mutual respect, so please give yourself the respect by using more
appropriate words.
If Buddhist Dharma is meant to be the teachings of Buddha and
his diciples, then its existence would never be denied by
Nâgârjuna.
"Auspicious is the pacification of phenomenal metastasis, the
pacification of all apprehending;
There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever,
whenever, wherever. --Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ
You have brought up a very important point, which many people
often get caught up in this confusion. The confusion is basically
to do with the nature of language - language can never be
completely precise in representing reality, because language itself
is symbolic and never the real thing.
What Nagarjuna taught and was further deliberated later by
Chandrakirti in Madhyamakavatara is what is known as Prasangika
Madhyamika. The position of Prasangika Madhyamika is that "the
viewless view is the greatest view". The purpose of illustrating
this point is to urge Dharma practitioners not to be attached to
any view.
The main method used is deconstructing whatever we hold to be the
truth, and ultimately reaching the conclusion that nothing is
truly existing. However,
this doesn't mean that nothing exists. Nothing truly exists - means
nothing exists in essence, but
everything appears as an illusion. The common analogy used
is that of the mirage - it does appear, you can't deny that, but
when you move closer to it, you can't find anything in essence.
Therefore, we say that the mirage does exist, as an illusion. That
is the state of all existence.
Therefore, in that respect, one can say that the Buddha taught no
Dharma - because in essence even the Dharma does not truly exist. Even the Buddha himself
said that, if anybody said that he taught the Dharma, that person
would be telling lies.
However, in the relative truth, there is the appearance of the
Buddha teaching the Dharma. Even historical records affirm that.
Only that such appearance and teaching exist as an illusion.
The Buddha's teaching is about "Middle Way" which is also known as
"Going beyond all extremes".
The "Middle Way" elaborated by Nagarjuna goes beyond the four
extremes of
- Existence
- Non-existence
- Both existence & non-existence
- Neither existence nor non-existence
If you assert that Nagarjuna said "Dharma does not exist", you have
missed the point. Likewise, if anybody said that the "Buddha does
exist, that person has missed the point. So on and so forth.
In the Four Reliances, the Buddha advised:
- Rely on the message, not on the personality of the teacher.
- Rely on the meaning, not just the words.
- Rely on the real meaning, not just the provisional meaning.
- Rely on your wisdom and insight, not just on your ordinary,
judgmental mind.
Therefore it is important for people studying the Dharma to clarify
the difference between real
meaning and provisional
meaning of the words. If not, one would get very
confused.
The study of Madhyamika is very deep and the meaning is very
profound. It warrants even years of study. Therefore, please take
note not to quote Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti out of context, but if
one has the opportunity to study it in depth, I really rejoice from
the depths of my heart. 
