dmb, What is the purpose of meditation within the Madhyamaka tradition? It is rational (wisdom) to the hilt, but considers meditation (insight) extremely important.
Marsha On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:41 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb says: > Mark Linsenmayer almost became a professional philosopher but now he's a good > amateur. He and a couple of his friends do a philosophy podcast called "The > Partially Examined Life". He posted a short essay about Buddhism and > pragmatism today. I thought it might add nicely to the fine work Andre has > been doing. In the first and third paragraph, he's quoting from a book by Jan > Westerhoff call "Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction": > > According to the Madhyamaka view of truth, there can be no such thing as > ultimate truth, a theory describing how things really are, independent of our > interests and conceptual resources employed in describing it. All one is left > with is conventional truth, truth that consists in agreement with commonly > accepted practices and conventions. These are the truths that are arrived at > when we view the world through our linguistically formed conceptual > framework. But we should be wary of denigrating these conventions as a > distorting device which incorporates our specific interests and concerns. The > very notion of "distortion" presupposes that there is a world untainted by > conceptuality out there (even if our minds can never reach it) which is > crooked and bent to fit our cognitive grasp. But precisely this notion of a > "way things really are" is argued by the Mādhyamika to be incoherent. There > is no way of investigating the world apart from our linguistic and conceptual > practices, if o > nly because these practices generate the notion of the "world" and of the > "objects" in it in the first place. To speak of conventional reality as > distorted is therefore highly misleading, unless all we want to say is that > our way of investigating the world is inextricably bound up with the > linguistic and conceptual framework we happen to employ. > > This passage hammers my point in yesterday's post that Nagarjuna is not a > Kantian, or an idealist like Berkeley. If you need a modern parallel, he's > more like a very strong pragmatist in his epistemology: there is the world > categorized and nothing beyond that (Nelson Goodman, whose episode I'll be > posting within the next week, is roughly in this camp). There is a difference > in emphasis, of course. For the pragmatist, the experienced world is all we > need to lead our lives, where for the Buddhist, realizing its non-ultimate > nature and being able to experience this on a moment to moment basis leads is > supposed to fundamentally reorient us philosophically. The pragmatist > philosophy doesn't center on Enlightenment. Still, this situation leaves the > Buddhist ethicist in roughly the same position as the pragmatist ethicist. > Here's more Westerhoff, later in the same section of his book, answering the > objection that Nagarjuna's view leads to the sort of relativism that would > make norma > tive ethics impossible: > > .Any culture with which we can interact at all, that is one that shares a > form of life with us, is one that shares with us at least some evaluative > standards. If it did not, we would not be able to ascribe to it anything like > rational forms of belief formation or ethical norms, so that the whole idea > of rational or ethical divergence and rational or ethical criticism would > lose its point. The Mādhyamika could then argue that even though different > cultures can have different standards none of which can be regarded as > ultimately true (since there is no such thing as ultimate truth), still some > standards can be seen to be better than others, for example in terms of > overall coherence with our practices (which are also a part of conventional > truth) or in terms of their ability to reduce pain. This view of Buddhism is > very different from the caricature of "all of this is illusion; let's > transcend it!" Conventional reality needs to be taken seriously, because in > an important sense, > that's all there is. > > At the same time, realizing that it's conventional (and hence flexible) puts > things in a certain perspective that is freeing on a practical and spiritual > level. ..." > > > Thanks Andre and please keep it coming. > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:33:10 +0200 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] The Dynamics of Value >> >> Ham to Alex, Mark, Andre [Adrie mentioned]: >> >> I can accept "observation" as a synonym for "experience" in delineating or >> actualizing essents (objects).However, I cannot comprehend how observation >> can occur without an >> "observer". >> >> Andre: >> Here is the full Annotation Ham ( I noticed I had omitted the term >> 'intellectual'): >> >> Annotn. 65. 'It seems close but I think it is really very far apart. In the >> Copenhagen Interpretation, >> and in all subject-object metaphysics, both the observed (the object) and >> the observer (the >> subject) are assumed to exist prior to the observation. In the MOQ, nothing >> exists prior to >> the observation. The observation creates the intellectual patterns called >> "observed" and >> "observer." Think about it. How could a subject and object exist in a world >> where there >> are no observations?' >> >> But when you say:'... I cannot comprehend how observation can occur without >> an 'observer'.' you are absolutely correct. But where does it say that? What >> the MOQ argues is that the observer and that which is observed arise >> together. You cannot have the one without the other. >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > 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 ___ 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
