Chapter 2.12 - Drishti Pariksha: Examination of Views

Nagarjuna characterized the past existence as impermanent (amicca). Having denied the self he maintains that consciousness Vijnana (Vinnana) provides a link between two lives. And again to answer to agnostics on the consciousness itself transmigrating. And again denying this consciousness is dependent by arisen and denies the identity of the self and consciousness. And he affirms that, the Atman is not identical with self and, there the grasping is subject to arising and ceasing. In the next sutra he observes how is neither different from grasping nor identical with grasping hence a self does not exist.

Nagarjuna clearly says a person freed from grasping, same time rejecting the Atman, is different from both grasping and non-grasping. It means a denial of identity and difference. Absolute difference implies absolute identity in the sense of Parabhava and Svabhava. So it involves complete independence. The views (Drishti) referred to here are the metaphysical views relating to identity, difference, both or neither. It should be noted that the reasons for rejecting these views are empirical. Empiricism, in the Buddha as well as in Nagarjuna, allows for the recognition of continuity without having to point absolute identity or absolute difference. Nagarjuna further discusses on the eternal world and the empirical world, and denies as an eternal being. But he allowed a possibility of human being reaching as a status of morally and materially superior to ordinary human beings, but refuses to ascribe divine status and permanent entities. Here Buddha and Nagarjuna uses the flame analogy by the specification of its fuel and its exhaustion.