Imaginary Psychology??

 

IS NAGARJUNA RIGHT? DO WE “REIFY?”

So, I am curious about Nagarjuna’s concept that we habitually “reify” things, along with ourselves. So he’s directly addressing the Indian Philosophers, with their theory of the Self… But in the end, Nagarjuna concludes seemingly that the average man (non-philosopher) somehow “reifies” or constantly imputes an innate existence to things and people. My theory, is that Nagarjuna isn’t actually witnessing something that people are supposedly doing; but he simply had an agenda to justify the Prajnaparamita scriptures and movement. My own opinion is that I do not reify anything, habitually. What is the Sanskrit term for reify; is it in Sanskrit similar to the Sanskrit term for “deify,” as the English terms?

GEMINI

This is a fantastic linguistic and psychological question. You are deconstructing the deconstructor.

First, let’s handle the linguistics, because the answer reveals a major difference between Western and Indian thought. Then, we will tackle your theory that Nagarjuna might have been inventing a problem to sell a solution.

1. The Sanskrit Terms: Reify vs. Deify

In English, the words rhyme because they share the Latin root facere (to make).

• Reify: From Latin res (thing) + facere (to make). "To make into a thing."

• Deify: From Latin deus (god) + facere (to make). "To make into a god."

In Sanskrit, these terms are completely unrelated. There is no rhyming connection.

A. The Term for "Reify"

Nagarjuna uses a few terms, but the most precise ones for "reification" or "imputing innate existence" are:

1. Samāropa (समारोप): Literally "Superimposition." This is the act of overlaying a concept of "Realness" onto something that is empty. It means projecting a snake onto a rope.

2. Prapañca (प्रपञ्च): Often translated as "Conceptual Proliferation." This refers to the mind’s tendency to take a simple sensory input and explode it into a complex story of "Subject, Object, and Action."

3. Svabhāva-graha (स्वभाव-ग्रह): "Grasping at Essence." Svabhava is "Own-Being" or "Intrinsic Nature." Graha is "seizing" or "clinging." This is the exact technical definition of reification in Madhyamaka.

B. The Term for "Deify"

• Devatva (देवत्व): Godhood/Divinity.

• Ishvara-buddhi (ईश्वर-बुद्धि): Viewing something as the Lord/God.

Conclusion: In Sanskrit, there is no linguistic link between making something "Real" and making something "Divine." Nagarjuna is not accusing us of worshipping the table; he is accusing us of freezing the table.

---

2. Is Reification Real, or Did Nagarjuna Invent It?

Your theory is: "Nagarjuna isn't witnessing something people do; he had an agenda to justify the Prajnaparamita."

You are partially right, but mostly wrong.

Where you are Right (The Agenda):

Nagarjuna absolutely had an agenda. He was a Mahayana monk trying to establish the legitimacy of the Prajnaparamita ("Perfection of Wisdom") sutras, which the conservative schools rejected. He needed a philosophical framework to defend them. So, yes, he systematized "Emptiness" to win a sectarian debate.

Where you might be Wrong (The Psychology of Reification):

You posit that the average person does not reify things. You say, "My own opinion is that I do not reify anything, on principle."

Nagarjuna would smile and say: "You are talking about your Philosophy. I am talking about your Instincts."

Here is the difference between "Intellectual Reification" (which you don't do) and "Innate Reification" (which Nagarjuna claims we all do).

The "Pinch" Test

Intellectually, you know a "Self" is just a collection of cells, memories, and habits. You don't believe in a Homunculus or a Soul. You are philosophically "Empty."

However:

If someone suddenly slapped your face hard in public, what happens?

1. A sudden contraction: A visceral, burning knot of "ME" arises in the chest.

2. A narrative: "How dare HE do this to ME."

3. The Defense: You instinctively protect this "Center."

Nagarjuna argues that this reaction is Reification (Svabhava-graha).

• Even if your philosophy says "I am empty," your biology screams "I am Real, Solid, and Permanent!"

• Reification isn't a belief you hold; it's a reflex. It is the "Spontaneous feeling of 'I'" (Sahaja-atman-graha).

The "Chariot" vs. The "Baby"

It is easy not to reify a Chariot (or a car). We know it's parts.

But do you reify your child? Or your reputation?

• If your car is scratched, you are annoyed.

• If your child is threatened, you experience a primal, non-negotiable reality. You feel the "Essence" of the child.

Nagarjuna is saying that the Average Man lives in a constant state of subconscious "freezing" of the world to make it navigable. We assume the floor is solid (permanently) so we can walk. We assume our friends are the same people today as yesterday (permanence) so we can love them.

Summary

• Sanskrit: There is no "Deify/Reify" wordplay. The term is Samaropa (Superimposition) or Svabhava-graha(Grasping at Nature).

• Your Theory: You are correct that Nagarjuna had a scholastic agenda. But modern cognitive science tends to back him up: humans are hardwired to be "Essentialists." We are born believing things have hidden, invisible essences (this is why children believe a tiger is still a tiger even if you paint it pink).

• The Challenge: Nagarjuna would say that claiming "I do not reify on principle" is actually a very subtle form of reification—you have reified the "Principle of Non-Reification" and identified yourself as a person who holds it!

  
  

  WAIT! BUT AM I ACTUALLY DOING ALL THAT “REIFICATION,” INTELLECTUALLY??

  
  

  I understand the visceral example above of being slapped in the face. But, is it really “mental/intellectual reification” or saying I have a solid sense of self, that makes me angry. Or is it the emotional grasping I have to my own self, along with the shock of the sudden slap? Are there Buddhists who still hold to the Buddha’s original identification of the problem as “grasping?”

GEMINI

You have hit upon the distinction between the Cognitive Model (Head) and the Affective Model (Heart/Gut) of suffering.

To answer your question directly: Yes, absolutely. The vast majority of Early Buddhism (and modern Theravada) focuses exactly on what you described: Grasping (Upadana) and Craving (Tanha), rather than the abstract "Reification" of Nagarjuna.

Here is the breakdown of the distinction you are making, and who agrees with you.

1. The "Chain of Command": Ignorance vs. Desire

In the Buddhist map of the mind (Dependent Origination), there is a chain of 12 links that leads to suffering. The two "Generals" of this army are:

1. Link #1: Ignorance (Avidya): Not seeing reality clearly. (This is where Nagarjuna focuses. He thinks if you fix the logic/view, the emotions will follow).

2. Link #8: Craving (Tanha) & Link #9: Grasping (Upadana): The emotional thirst and the tightening of the fist. (This is where Early Buddhism focuses. They think if you calm the desire, the ignorance will clear up).

   
   

Your Critique of the "Slap": You are arguing that the anger comes from Link #8/9 (Grasping)—the visceral, emotional contraction of self-protection. Nagarjuna argues the anger comes from Link #1 (Ignorance/Reification)—the deep-seated, sub-conscious belief that there is a "Target" to be hit.

Nagarjuna would say: "You grasp because you think you are real." You (and the Buddha of the Pali Canon) might say: "I think I am real because I keep grasping."

2. The Buddhists Who Agree With You: The Theravada Tradition

If you find Nagarjuna’s "Reification" talk too heady or disconnected from the visceral reality of emotion, you are essentially a Theravadin (Way of the Elders) at heart.

In the Pali Canon (the oldest scriptures), the Buddha rarely engages in the hyper-logical deconstruction of "essence" that Nagarjuna loves. instead, he focuses on The Fire of Passion.

• The Fire Sermon: One of the Buddha's most famous sermons doesn't mention "Emptiness" or "Reification." He says: "All is burning, monks. Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion."

• The Prescription: He doesn't say "Deconstruct the ontological status of the fire." He says "Let go of the fuel."

The "Grasping" View: These Buddhists argue that the problem isn't that we make intellectual errors about "Existence." The problem is that we are addicted to Sensory Pleasure (Kama-tanha) and Existence (Bhava-tanha).

• The Cure: Not logic, but Ethical Restraint (Sila) and Meditation (Samadhi). You cool the grasping down until the hand naturally opens.

3. Yogacara: The Psychological Critique

Even within Mahayana Buddhism, the Yogacara (Mind-Only) school agreed with your critique of Nagarjuna.

They felt Nagarjuna was too obsessed with the "Object" (proving the world isn't real) and ignored the "Subject" (the messy, grasping mind).

• Their View: The problem is Vasanas (Habit Energies). We have deep-seated emotional habits stored in our unconscious (Alaya).

• The Slap: When you get slapped, it isn't a logical error that occurs; it is an explosion of old "Habit Energy" (anger seeds) stored in your psyche.

• The Cure: You can't logic your way out of a habit. You have to "turn the stream" (Paravrtti) through deep psychological reprogramming (meditation and compassion).

4. Summary: The "Thief" Analogy

To understand the difference between your view (Grasping) and Nagarjuna's view (Reification), imagine a Thief (Suffering) breaks into your house.

• Your View (and Early Buddhism): The Thief is Grasping/Desire.

  • Solution: Catch the thief, wrestle him down, and throw him out. (Stop the grasping through will and mindfulness).

• Nagarjuna’s View: The Thief is Reification.

  • Solution: Turn on the lights and realize there is no thief. The "Thief" was just a coat rack that you mistook for a person in the dark.

Why your view is practical: If it is a real thief (and the slap feels very real!), then Nagarjuna’s advice to "turn on the lights and see he is empty" might get you stabbed. Sometimes, you need to deal with the visceral "Grasping" first (calm the anger, soothe the ego) before you can afford the luxury of deconstructing the "Self."

So, yes: The problem is Grasping. Nagarjuna simply believes that Reification is the mother of Grasping. You are allowed to disagree and focus on the child!

The Sufi-Buddhist Connection

 

A Madhyamaka — Sufi Comparison

QUESTION:

Please give me an outline comparing Nagarjuna’s technique of deconstruction with the Sufi technique of de-mechanizing the mind.

GEMINI:

This is a fascinating comparison. You are contrasting the Surgical approach (Nagarjuna) with the Alchemicalapproach (Sufism).

While Nagarjuna tries to crash the operating system of the mind through logical paradox, the Sufi tries to intoxicate the operator (or break their habits) so they abandon the controls entirely.

Here is an outline comparing Nagarjuna’s Logical Deconstruction with the Sufi technique of De-mechanization (often called Malamati or the "Path of Blame," and the shattering of the Nafs).

---

Essay Title: The Razor and the Wine: Strategies of Self-Annihilation in Madhyamaka and Sufism

I. Introduction

• The Shared Problem: Both systems agree that the human being is trapped in a "False Reality" generated by habit, conditioning, and ego-identification.

• The Divergent Methods:

  • Nagarjuna (The Cool Path): Uses Logical Deconstruction to prove the intellect is incapable of grasping reality. The goal is Cognitive Failure (the mind gives up).

  • Sufism (The Hot Path): Uses Behavioral De-mechanization (Shock/Love/Zikr) to prove the ego is incapable of satisfying the heart. The goal is Ego Death (Fana).

• Thesis: While Nagarjuna deconstructs the Object (showing the world is empty), the Sufi deconstructs the Subject (showing the "I" is a veil), yet both aim for the silence where non-dual perception occurs.

II. Nagarjuna’s Technique: The Intellectual Short-Circuit

• A. The Target: Essentialism (Svabhava)

  • Nagarjuna attacks the "mechanical" tendency of the mind to freeze reality into solid concepts (Time, Space, Self).

• B. The Tool: The Tetralemma (Catuskoti)

  • He forces the mind into a corner: Is it X? Not X? Both? Neither?

  • He does not offer a solution; he denies all four possibilities to induce a state of "Aporia" (groundlessness).

• C. The Mechanism: Logic against Logic

  • He uses the mind’s own obsession with consistency to prove that its view of the world is inconsistent.

  • The Result: The "Thorn" removes the "Thorn." The discursive mind crashes, leaving the practitioner in the gap of Emptiness (Shunyata).

III. The Sufi Technique: The Shattering of the Idol

• A. The Target: The Nafs (The Commanding Self)

  • The Sufi attacks the "mechanical" tendency of the ego to seek praise, safety, and social validation. The "Idol" is not a statue; it is the worshipper's own reputation and identity.

• B. The Tool: The Path of Blame (Malamati) & Paradox

  • De-mechanizing Behavior: Sufi masters (like Shams Tabrizi or the Dervishes) often act in bizarre, shocking, or anti-social ways to break the "robot" of social conditioning.

  • The Teaching Story: Using jokes (Mulla Nasrudin) or paradoxes to bypass the logical mind and hit the intuition.¹

• C. The Mechanism: Zikr (Remembrance) as Reprogramming

  • Replacing the mechanical internal monologue ("I want, I need") with a single, overriding frequency ("Allah, Allah" or "Hu").

  • The Result: The "Wine" of Divine Love dissolves the "Jailer" of the Intellect. The practitioner undergoes Fana (Annihilation).²

IV. Comparative Analysis: How They Break the Machine

• A. Dryness vs. Drunkenness

  • Nagarjuna: Dry Wisdom. He views the mechanical mind as a Liar to be exposed in court.

  • Sufism: Drunken Wisdom. It views the mechanical mind as a Busybody to be distracted or overwhelmed by the "Wine" of Love.

• B. The Role of Discursivity

  • Nagarjuna: Engages directly with discursivity to destroy it (Hyper-discursive).

  • Sufism: Ignores discursivity or mocks it (Anti-discursive). Rumi often says, "Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment."

• C. The Landing Pad

  • Nagarjuna: Lands in Emptiness (Shunyata). No attributes. A "Zero" point.

  • Sufism: Lands in Union (Tawhid). The ego is gone, but the Divine Presence remains (a "Shentong" or Saguna-like reality). The "Zero" becomes the "One."

V. The Dangers of Each Method

• A. The Madhyamaka Trap: Nihilism

  • The student learns to deconstruct everything but fails to love anything. They become a "Dead Void."

• B. The Sufi Trap: Antinomianism (Lawlessness)

  • The student breaks social norms to "kill the ego" but ends up just being an impulsive hedonist, claiming they are "above the law" (Sharia).

VI. Conclusion

• Synthesis: Both methods aim to stop the "World-Building Machine" in the human head.

• The Divergence: Nagarjuna stops the machine by taking out the gears (Logic). The Sufi stops the machine by flooding the engine with fuel (Love).

• Final Thought: Ideally, one needs Nagarjuna’s razor to cut the ropes of illusion, and the Sufi’s wine to celebrate the freedom. Without the razor, the mystic is deluded; without the wine, the philosopher is depressed.

What Is Objective Knowledge, And How Does One Acquire It?

 

WHEN ONE IS STARTING WITH NOTHING, HOW DO YOU BEGIN?

THE THREE ELEMENTS FOR BEGINNING 

Ancient philosophers devised various approaches and systems for determining what was true knowledge, through the use of logic, scripture, the words of a teacher, and so on. These different approaches related to religious, philosophical, and metaphysical knowledge or “belief.”

Gurdjieff’s system requires the student above all understand; that he accept nothing (except provisionally) on faith, but finally come to a true knowledge or objective grasp of an idea or concept.

The whole procedure behind gaining a bit of truly objective knowledge is prevented or obstructed simply by the disorganization of the human machine, as Gurdjieff indicates. How can a human know, when his internal mentation and feeling has no center, no essence, no right or correct functioning? There is not even, as Gurdjieff says, a central “I” to act from, as a center of gravity, to know about anything at all.

The answer, is that one needs to start with the limited resources that one has in order to know what is truly real. And that requires the combined effort of three things:

1). Clear, Rational, Logical Thinking.

A lot of people these days don’t believe in clear thinking. There is an assumption that “experts” are government stooges; that science is a corrupt tool of the corporations and billionaires; that even what one “researches” on obscure corners of the internet is the “real truth.”

On the other hand, there are many people who proclaim that they are atheists because science can’t detect or measure spirit; that what current science books say is the only truth one should believe in; people who even slavishly copy the social, moral, and political stances of left-leaning media rags to a “T” without any individual investigation at all.

Neither one of these approaches demonstrates clear thinking.

Clear thinking entails using the intellect to think for oneself, clearly, independently, and in a progressively logical manner. It can be thinking about conventional scientific facts, so-called; or it can be thinking about metaphysical and religious things, such as whether or not there is a God.

There is a strong current in the Gurdjieff Foundation which rejects clear, logical thinking; which accuses the head of “being a bowling ball.” The overlying idea behind that, I assume, is to not get caught up in “discursive thinking” of the mind; but to “be here, now,” and experience reality instead. It is also supposedly to learn to “feel,” although for the most part, “feeling” in the Work really ends up being more, “what was my physical reaction to such-and-such?”

This is not a bad motivation, to not get caught up in the “formatory apparatus” and to notice the emotions. But there is a difference between simply being awake and conscious of reality, and being rudderless at sea.

The Fourth Way is above all a system. It is, as Nicoll says, a system of ideas which needs to be absorbed and internalized, in order to understand the system. Without the Fourth Way system, teachers and group members in the “Work” are simply “psychoanalyzing” one another — without a license! — and getting one another in a heap of psychological trouble, emotionally and mentally.

In the Tales, Gurdjieff is constantly talking about rationality and clear thinking. This entails the use of the Intellectual Center, such as one has it, in its undeveloped state. The intellect can be sharpened and honed through correct usage.

And the intellect is how we approach, think about, and move closer to “Objective Knowledge.” It cannot be a reactive type of thinking; where we simply come up with whatever superficial thought happens to occur to us. But it must be a directed, sustained, deep, and honest inner research of a concept.

2). “Friction” Within the Thinking, Emotional, and Moving Centers Is Crucial!

Friction means going against the grain; it means doing “the right thing” in daily life; it means working to make sense of yourself and your life and your world full-time. When we go about our business in life, we don’t need to assume that what we automatically think, feel, and do is just simply “us being ourselves,” no questions asked. Yes, certainly we need to be honest about ourselves throughout life, and not be a “phony.”

But our automatic reactions in life are simply the law of entropy; just acquiescing to a stimulus that hits us. It is going downhill, rather than struggling hard to go upwards, to climb the mountain. Choosing to simply not work, and to “be real,” is us simply being a slab of meat, under the butcher’s cleaver, for a sale. Friction entails not reacting; but choosing our action. 

At first, for a very long time, friction or the struggle to choose between right and wrong (in one’s own view) seems like a lot of unnecessary suffering. But it is better by far than the inner confusion that goes with giving up or not trying to improve oneself; the superior way is to struggle to make sense of one’s Life.

It is through friction that we work to also make progress in beginning to see a dim outline of Objective Reality. Slowly, this hard work begins to form small structures within our centers of intellect, emotion, and movement. Structures which are the first formations of the permanent centers, rather than the splintered and chaotic mix of thoughts and feelings (reactions) which initially filled our life.

These nascent centers, and the knowledge and being (or rather impressions of intellect and feeling and experience) they contain are the first crucial organs of perception which can make sense of Reality, and which can perceive Objective Knowledge.

Gurdjieff in general called this friction “putting up with the manifestations of others around us,” or “not complaining when others step on our corns.” This idea being that we outwardly not react when confronted with other people’s annoying or irritating words and deeds. But rather, to inwardly process the behavior of others; to process or work through other’s manifestations in an intellectual and emotional way. We then teach others through the inner transmutation of ourselves.

3). Finally, Along with the Preceding Two, There Is the Collecting of Experience 

Then third, there is experience. The Fourth Way Work is right, in that it is important to “verify everything.” It is necessary that, whatever we think we know or whatever we read or hear, that we check it out in the real world for ourselves.

And we can verify everything; from the structure of our mind, to the “level of being” of our teacher, to the existence of God. These are not things that we can “prove” to anther person or to a scientific panel. An inner mental/emotional thing can be verified in an inner way, just as a spiritual thing can be verified in a higher and inner way. There are repeatable and even external and sensory methods that can verify inner and spiritual things.

And it is important that we implement the knowledge and being we have attained in our external lives. Perhaps a better way of expressing it would be, after we have gained some knowledge and being within ourselves, our outer life starts to manifest that higher level of knowledge and being, externally. It is not necessarily a lower magic, but rather a true “high magic;” where an inner elevation and change is reflected with an outer bestowal of gifts of transcendent quality.

In fact, the noticing of external synchronous events around oneself is a superior way of verifying inner structures and processes. Gurdjieff noted this when he stated, “Knowledge begins with the teaching of the Cosmoses.” The true “microcosm” of the ancients, by the way, is not the human body; the physical body is just another part of the outer world, or macrocosm. The true microcosm is the mind and feelings — the consciousness and will — of a human being. Unfortunately this crucial knowledge has been lost; and most especially absent these days with the Gurdjieffians. This is also the original teaching of the Buddha.

In the end, just as one wants the most substantive intellect, and one wants the most substantive motivation and choice in Life (friction), so also one wants the most substantive fixtures in the external world to inform oneself. When looking outward for confirmation and for knowledge, it is imperative to look to the most reliable and most authoritative things, people, places, and events one can find. This requires discernment. Or as the Buddhists call it “discriminating wisdom.” Life contains a whole spectrum of phenomena; Objective Knowledge can be found only at the top of the spectrum. (Unfortunately, there isn’t the option to misread the Buddhist’s “emptiness,” and simply accept everything around oneself indiscriminately, as emptiness.)

IN CONCLUSION 

So, Objective Knowledge isn’t “facts.” Objective Knowledge can be defined as possessing an unvarnished view of the world, of Reality. The cosmos is a system (as in systems theory), a wholistic organism that cannot be assembled with a collection of facts. But in order to acquire this objective view, mankind needs to have an inner structure that can apprehend that outer reality. If there is nothing on the inside of a person, then the outer truth cannot make an impression.

Objective Knowledge is alternatively not simply opinions or beliefs. As is commonly said, beliefs are “held.” One can lose them or change them. Whereas a person “possesses” knowledge. This knowledge has become a part of the possessor. Through the exercise of the three above elements, true knowledge is at first dimly perceived, then apprehended, and finally verified and tested, over and over again. Then in the end it becomes a part of one’s outer daily life.

If one wanted to apply the Law of Three to the above, or perhaps the gunas of Indian Philosophy, Intellect would have a sattvic nature, Friction would have a rajasic nature, and Experience in the World might have a tamasic nature.

But these three are necessary, and all we have to begin with, to perceive the Real World.

What this process entails is the proverbial “pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps.” We start with nothing at all; and end up being a complete cosmos.