On Sep 12, 9:23 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> “…But if all things are empty
> of a fixed nature, then that would include, would it not, Nagarjuna’s
> own claim that all things are empty? ". I did not see how the
> rebuttal paraphrased in _the end of disputes_ met this central
> objection….” – Alan
>
> Yes, it would include such a claim…at least in the sense of
> dialectics. However, it does not fail when one includes direct
> apprehension of being.
Nice phrase "apprehension of being". May I ask: what is this
apprehension of being if the center is emptiness? . Being is not non-
being; there is no being there to apprehend!
> IF you are interested in such eastern
> philosophical analysis, a simple overview like “Appearance & Reality…
> the Two Truths in the Four Buddhist Tenet Systems” – Guy Newland, Snow
> Lion is a good place to start. It is a short read and includes
> differing systems/views from the same cultures and time…although it
> does have the bias of current day Tibetan Buddhism’s “Middle Way”
> philosophy, thus does not look in an unbiased way at the “Mind Only”
> school.
> So, IF you are interested in all point/counter points around such
> philosophies, it won’t take much to find enormous sets of resources.
> We are lucky today in that much of this type of ancient philosophy
> (love of knowledge) has been recently translated by experts in the
> field.
Thanks for the pointers. I am interested in the mystery of being and
becoming. Would not that very title "appearence and reality" confirm a
first principle of the philosophy of being -- "being is not non-
being"? Otherwise we could not speak of "appearance" and "reality".
For appearance is saying of what is that it is not or of what is not
that it is.
> On Sep 12, 1:46 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Good essays which provided an hour of pleasant reading. It seems
> > Nagarjuna tackles the same problems in causality Aristotle did, but
> > (if the translation is accurate) adopts a way remarkably like that of
> > the greek Hericlitus who also denied essences when he said "you cannot
> > step into the same river twice".
>
> > The problem with that view is that science (the knowledge of things in
> > their causes) is impossible, because there are no fixed essences
> > whereby we know things.
>
> > Towards the end of the essay the Logicians saw this, in the criticism
> > "Now Nagarjuna has told us that emptiness is the lack of a fixed,
> > essential nature which all things exhibit. But if all things are empty
> > of a fixed nature, then that would include, would it not, Nagarjuna’s
> > own claim that all things are empty? ". I did not see how the
> > rebuttal paraphrased in _the end of disputes_ met this central
> > objection.
>
> > Perhaps we should walk through how classic western metaphysical
> > realism addresses the same mystery of permanence and change, compare
> > Aristotle with Nagarjuna.
>
> > On Sep 9, 1:14 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > So, we have been addressing quite a few rather heady topics recently.
> > > I thought that in order to help some of the materialists get up to
> > > speed philosophically, I would start a topic on emptiness. This notion
> > > is near the core of much I have been writing recently. It directly
> > > addresses the nature of reality in a scientific way albeit with a
> > > different approach than that which can be addressed by the science
> > > most are familiar with.
>
> > > Why would one say or even suggest that the brain is not where
> > > consciousness resides? Why would one suggest that what we feel and
> > > see is in fact not there? …valid questions. And, little within the
> > > western tradition of philosophy will address these and other
> > > metaphysical issues…except perhaps science when it comes to the actual
> > > nature of things say physically exist…and, of course, this does
> > > include ‘us’…and our brains, thus that which many demand is the seat
> > > of consciousness. So…here I ask you to become a true skeptic and
> > > examine very closely the things you see and feel. What is the nature
> > > of a table? Does it exist? How do we know a table is a table? Does a
> > > table ever change what it is? Etc.
>
> > > To get a better view of some of the issues for those willing to take
> > > the red pill and not remain in the habit of eating blue pills, I will
> > > introduce you to one of the greatest philosophers of all time,
> > > Nagarjuna. Vam may have some clear and perhaps opposing views, and, I
> > > hope for a lively discussion.
>
> > > How could he come to find that emptiness is the ultimate cosmology?
> > > Why would you not agree with him?
>
> > >http://www.iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/...
> > > (a couple of resources)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
