Ham to Andre: Also, in an analysis at Orientalia.org,, Plamen Gradinarov mentions at least one "absolutist" interpretation of Nagarjuna's teachings.. .
Andre, I base my views on a combination of experience and a reading of Garfield's interpretation. Garfield has identified 'absolutist' and 'nihilist' readings of Nagarjuna and addresses these in his book. The Middle Way is what it claims to be and Nagarjuna is no fool. Any contrary interpretation is a mis-reading/ understanding of the text. Garfield, to the best of his ability points these out. And Garfield is no fool either. In this sense I regard Garfield as suggesting the highest quality explanation of the Middle Way to date. Ham: Apart from the fact that, as "created beings", we are all dependent on an uncreated Source, please tell me how our response to Quality or Value changes our conception of birth and death. Andre: When do/did you 'start' being born and when do/did you 'start' dying? Ham: All we can know is what we as subjects experience of an objective reality. Human thought and reasoning are necessarily limited to this experience. Intellect is indeed our capacity to reason. However, "attacking subject-object" to make it disappear is hardly the most propitious application of intellect I can think of. Andre If this is your essentialist position then stay with it Ham. This is an MoQ discuss. Who or where does the MoQ postulate the necessary disappearance act of subject-object? Andre Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
