“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!” – AW
Of course you can ask! We all do most of the time! In the specific, emptiness merely means being empty of inherent existence…which is true for appearances…we know that they arise, stay for a while and then go away. So, they are subjective and we all still experience them, so, while they do not have an existence (of their own) independent from all else (if they did ‘they’ would be the absolute), they do ‘exist’ in that we all experience ‘it’ (consciousness). Going further, including your second observation, there is the adage “Neither being nor non-being, nor both nor neither.” This is found within the tradition we are discussing so, is appropriate to bring up in this context. For the linear (thinking-analytical) mind, paradoxes are to be found at every turn. And, there is another viewpoint from which one can watch the analysis, and see that it addresses appearances only with the result of a more, for lack of a better term, transcended point of view. Again, yes, no ‘being’ in the relative sense or absolute sense alone and, we can see this ‘being’. “…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.” – AW Again, the relative (subjective/appearance) and absolute (objective/ reality) [these are not all terms Buddhists in general use], both are addressed when one delves into mind. And, this is appropriate in that we can/do apprehend/grok both. In some schools of Buddhism, Neo- Platonism, the Eleusian Mysteries and other metaphysics, one can reach the union of relative and absolute (consubstantially). On Sep 12, 9:54 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
