How is Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness different from original Essay

How is Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness different from original Buddhist philosophical teaching - Essay Example In this way, he argued that emptiness does not represent a thing since it is not something one can point at and identify neither can one grasp it with the hand. The idea of emptiness means that things lack the element of natural being or in other words they have no soul or natural being. Nagarjuna argued that there is nothing in the world that possesses a soul or essence which means that they have no permanent unique base (Olson 167). This shows that if things do not have a natural existence or essence, it means they are not independent. Emptiness in this respect clarifies that things are fundamentally relative and therefore, cannot exist on their own. This philosophy of Nagarjuna goes against original Buddhist philosophies that identified the soul as an intrinsic being that can exist on it own even after death. Nagarjuna additionally, states that emptiness is not superior and does not judge other views because in itself it is empty. For instance, Nagarjuna touches on the issue of ex istence or non-existence and concludes that human beings overlay a personality on things that are not there. He says that the ideas of existence and non-existence are only formed in the minds of human beings which mean that emptiness destroys ignorance, gullible and blind concepts. In this way, the Four Noble Truths like knowledge and truth exist in the mind and are able to eliminate the issue of ignorance (Olson 168). It is clear from Nagarjuna viewpoint that emptiness is meant to destroy the erroneous human perception to ensure that people see things and experiences as they truly should be. He adds that emptiness is not a self-proven reality that is meant to object the issue of non-emptiness. He cites that human should therefore, not get attached to the constituent of emptiness in itself, because it is not something substantial that people need to cling onto. In Nagarjuna’s ideas, human beings should detach themselves from mental and emotional inventions since they lead peo ple to transcend their personhood. In this respect, humans are required to free themselves from any ideas or events which include the concept of emptiness. The natural nature of emptiness is emptiness which leads to the ultimate truth instead of the ultimate truth by itself (Olson 168). Nagarjuna believes that emptiness is not a concept that can be proven or defended because it is not a position at all. The concept of emptiness means that all questions end since there is no position to defend. The question of nivarna (spirit or heaven) arises and does it mean that it does not exist? In Nagarjuna explanation, there is no suggestion or intention that is legitimate in absolute sense. It is a philosophy where Nagarjuna ensures that humans understand that they need to eliminate mental and emotional attachment to extraordinary concepts and take up simple insight to the nature of things. In this respect, it is possible to understand nivarna from Nigarjuna philosophy since he says that all extraordinary things are empty which shows that nivarna is also empty. This conclusion clarifies that nivarna is devoid of any forms of unfairness, particularities and even of definitions (Olson 169). In addition, nivarna is devoid of all sorts of representations and verbal differentiations which mean it is not independent. It is clear that Nagarjuna says that nivarna and the idea of

War On Terror by Kenneth Waltz Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

War On Terror by Kenneth Waltz - Research Paper Example The first image proposes the individual nature of man as the primary cause of wars which is why it can to be known as ‘individual level of analysis’. As Waltz say in his book Man the State and War â€Å"the locus of the important causes of war is found in the nature and behavior of man†. This analysis coincides with the point of view of numerous philosophers such as Spinoza, Rousseau and Niebuhr who believed that war was the direct result of human aggressiveness self-interest, misdirected and stupidity to achieve a peace in a self intellectual level. Hence according to this level man must change his psyche, however this theory cannot be declared entirely true as Waltz himself later argued that the importance of human nature as an individual cause of wars is reduced by the fact that the very same nature explains a variety of events. Waltz then analyses another reason for war, that is the second image. He proposes that war is a product of internal structure and domestic strife within countries. ‘With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desire - conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur.’ He assumes that the nature of a states political institutions and how it is governed will determine whether the state will be at war or peaceful however the most logical counter argument to this analysis is that it assumes that â€Å"bad states lead to war†¦that good states mean peace in the world,†.... He assumes that the nature of a states political institutions and how it is governed will determine whether the state will be at war or peaceful however the most logical counter argument to this analysis is that it assumes that â€Å"bad states lead to war†¦that good states mean peace in the world,† ( Waltz 159) which in itself is a highly doubtful proposition. His third level of analysis emphasizes the anarchical international system composed of states and the interdependence of the policies of all states, namely the structure of the international system is the root cause of war. Analyzing political issues from the third image means relying on the international organizations, forums, and treaties that nations abide by. Major governmental and non governmental organizations are analyzed when seeking the causes of war and conflict according to third level of analysis. Waltz draws heavily upon the work of Rousseau and states that just as individuals act upon their immediate interests to the detriment of the general group interests, states should follow a rational course of action. Harmony in anarchy exists when not only is every state rational but every state assumes that every other state is rational too. Moreover, â€Å"To allow...for the irrational acts of others can lead to no determinate solution but to attempt to act on a rational calculation without making such an allowance can lead to (my own) undoing†(Waltz 169) I believe the most important cause lies in the third image i.e., the imperative influence of anarchy is the ‘underlying’ or ‘permissive’ cause of war. Many of the causes of war can be explained by the pressures exerted on states by the anarchic