Nice sample of Nagarjuna: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Buddhist%20Writings/NagarjunaWisdom.htm
On Jan 18, 6:52 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Twir, you have quite an appetite! I too started out with almost a > spiritual sense of awe when it came to pure math. Somewhere along the > line it fizzled out…most likely when I spent two weeks and 28 pages of > text learning how to literally prove that 1 + 1 = 2. . . abstract > algebra I’d guess. . . not sure now. Although, I can say for sure that > once Calc became embodied, I felt actual perceptual changes…so there > is something to it….and, Neil turned me on to a few books to help > polish off my belief structures about math. > As to where to stop…perhaps with one’s last breath? > > “Yes, I don't know any Eastern philosophers by name…” – Twir > > While not claiming to be an authority here, I do have some > experience. Vam may know a few for Vedanta better than I so I will > leave those schools to him; however, most from India do cross over > into the Buddhist philosophers I’ve studied, a list of some of the > more noteworthy as I see it follows: > > Middle Way School (Madhyamaka): Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are considered > authoritative by all Madhyamikas, regardless of sub-school > Prasangika-Madhyamaka (Middle Way Consequence): > Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Santiadeva, Tsong Khapa > Yogacara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka: Santaraksita, Kamalasila, > Haribhadra > Sautrantika-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka: Bhavaviveka, > Jnanagarbha > > Yogacara/Cittamatra (Mind Only School): > Mind Only Followers of Reasoning: Dignaga, Dharmakirti > Mind Only Followers of Scripture: Asanga, Vasubandhu > > Sautrantika > Sutra School Followers of Reasoning: Dignaga, Dharmakirti > Sutra School Followers of Scripture: Vasubandhu > > Great Exposition School (Vaibhasika): Vasubandhu and others. > > There are countless sites online for such things and rather than > burden you with some of the heavier ones, to start, Alan Wallace might > be good. His site includes references, audio downloads and a reading > library…again, free to use. When it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, he is > near the top as I see it. He is fluent in both Tibetan and Sanskrit. > > http://www.sbinstitute.com/ > > And, I haven’t even touched China here…again wishing to share that > which I have found most profound instead of longer lists. > > My personal view is that when it comes to things ontological as well > as epistemological, the ‘east’ starts beyond where many in the ‘west’ > end. A prejudice for sure, however based upon some time in the art. > > On Jan 18, 8:30 am, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 18, 12:54 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that Husserl's main contribution was to define [phenomenology]. > > > It will be difficult to interpret [Heidegger] or Sartre without the ideas > > > in his book "Ideas" > > > I was afraid of that. More generally (and I think this might be a > > point of more general interest to other members), one reason why I > > have not engaged in any formal or systematic study of philosophy is my > > fear that I have no chance of understanding Heidegger, say, not only > > because of the idiosyncrasy of his use of a foreign language (I did > > study German in school, and it was one of the few subjects I enjoyed, > > but I have forgotten almost all of it, so I will probably have to rely > > on translations) - this problem is perhaps especially acute with > > Heidegger (on the other hand, I have my own deep dissatisfaction with > > ordinary language, so I might have some sympathy for his > > idiosyncrasies) - but more simply and more generally, because he is > > building on the work of his predecessors, going back for millennia, > > even explicitly (in Heidegger's case, again) to the Presocratics. > > > Where does one stop? Or rather, where does one start? (I almost > > expect a Heideggerian answer to that!) > > > It's not like studying mathematics, where, as Dieudonne (I think) and > > many others have observed, the later stuff kind of subsumes a lot of > > the earlier stuff, and makes it more or less possible (in my case > > less, but never mind!) to absorb a good chunk of the central history > > of the subject. > > > Or is it? Is philosophy progressive, in any even remotely analogous > > way? > > > > It is true that [Heidegger] and Sartre, deal with being and Husserl sort > > > of missed it, > > > That rings a bell, from that article I faintly remember reading. I > > very dimly recall getting the impression that Husserl thought of > > phenomenology too literally as a science; but of course I may be > > getting this totally wrong. > > > > but the application of > > > phenomenology to ontology was really what gave them their > > > breakthroughs – and that’s where your breakthrough can occur too – > > > Husserl’s reduction gave them access to the material they published.. > > > I think I understand. > > > > Vam might have some recommended reading from India. Not sure how he > > > got tuned in but I bet you dollars to donuts he has some very > > > interesting source material. > > > Yes, I don't know any Eastern philosophers by name (and some of them, > > I seem to recall, are anonymous), but mention of the likes of > > Schopenhauer and Jung kind of brings them in by implication (OK, so > > arguing like that could justify anything!), and people have seen > > connections between Meister Eckhart and Eastern philosophy, too. > > > > You might consider this reduced list : > > > Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, [Nietzsche], Jung, Husserl, > > > Heidegger, Sartre, Wittgenstein, Popper, Denning, > > > Denning? Typo? (See below.) > > > > Searle (Not sure Jung belongs there. Have you seen his « Red Book yet ?) > > > I have a strong sense that Jung will be very important to me, and I > > don't want to draw too hard-and-fast a dividing line between > > "philosophy" and "psychology", especially as (I believe) a lot of > > what /should/ be philosophy has been pushed into the "psychology" > > category. > > > I hadn't even heard of the Red Book (just the period in his life when > > it was written). Thanks for telling me about it! > > > > I would study them in this order though : (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre), > > > OK, I'll see what I can do about that. It's all very daunting! > > > > (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas), > > > Although I'm totally ignorant of Aquinas, I know that Plato is a > > delight to read (and mind-spinningly confusing and unnerving), and I > > have Aristotle's ./Nicomachean Ethics/ to hand (although I have never > > opened it). > > > > (Kant), > > > Oh Gawd, Kant! Who's scarier, him or Heidegger? Anyway, I have an > > abridged edition of /The Critique of Pure Reason/ (ed. Humphrey > > Palmer), /Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/ (two copies: tr. > > Ellington, tr. Paton), and /Perpetual Peace and Other Essays/ (tr. Ted > > Humphrey), from which I have actually read and enjoyed (a long time > > ago, possibly in another translation) "Idea for a Universal History > > with a Cosmopolitan Intent". > > > > (Kierkegaard, > > > I think I'm going to enjoy him, although I fancy his contemporary > > references might take some getting used to. > > > > [Nietzsche]), > > > I hate him! Must I? I suppose I must. Where should I start? (Sigh.) > > > > (Wittgenstein), > > > Also scary, and also not at all to my taste, in either the earlier or > > the later incarnation. But I suppose I've got to, sometime. (I did > > skim through his /Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics/, and > > found it mostly merely annoying, and not even very suggestive. My > > fault, I suppose.) Can I not start with thinkers I actually like, feel > > some affinity for? (I've been told that I resemble him. Perhaps > > that's why I don't like him.) > > > > (Jung), > > > Also difficult, of course, but vital for me. Have read a few things: / > > Synchronicity/, of course, and his autobiography, some easier popular > > books (/The Undiscovered Self/, /Modern Man in Search of a Soul./, > > maybe others, all of which I liked). Don't have any real idea where to > > start on a proper study. Don't really know what an archetype is ... > > > > (Popper, > > > Should be very pleasant - at least /The Open Society and its Enemies/ > > (and I've read his autobiography /Unended Quest/, and a few bits and > > pieces here and there). He should help me to keep my feet on the > > ground (with my head still in the clouds, if I can stretch, but at > > least in not the sand). > > > > Dennet, > > > Not that Daniel Dennett character? Must I read him? Really? Please > > tell me it's just a typo! > > > > Searle) > > > OK, he's fun, and pretty sensible (although not exactly in tune with > > my way of thinking). He should also help me to stay grounded. > > > > I would focus on ontology throughout. > > > The ontology of persons, or more generally? > > > > You won't be able to get through all of each category > > > :-) > > > > but after you get a feel for it you can move on and come back to fill in > > > detail. > > > > Who knows, maybe we will need to add you to the list if you ever can > > > write up what you find out! > > > I'd better get busy, then! Oh, dear, I'm so depressed, and I've got > > this terrible pain down all the diodes in my left side .. > > > > What's that phrase? "The unexamined life is scarcely worth living?" > > > I think I'm going to fail this examination. > > > > Oh, and one other thing to remember... you know what's wrong with just > > > "having a positive mental attitude"?...... Its just too > > > depressing...:) > > > :-) > > > > On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, Twirlip <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 18, 12:08 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Consider adding Husserl and Aquinas > > > > > I certainly considered adding Husserl, especially since he started as > > > > a mathematician, but something I read somewhere, a year or so ago, > > > > suggested that I would not really find him at all congenial. I'm > > > > sorry I cannot remember the details, but it was an article comparing > > > > and contrasting his version of phenomenology with someone else's, > > > > possibly Merleau-Ponty (but again I'm not sure), and although I'm > > > > unfamiliar with the field, I formed a definite impression that the > > ... > > read more »- 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.
