Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Try reading Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers by Thich Nhat Hanh. I wouldn't say that they are very similar but there are some key ideas which you may want to think over after reading the book
On the subject of Christianity and Buddhism, Thich Nhat Hanh wrote a book called 'Living Buddha, Living Christ', I haven't got it, but, I have read parts of it in the shops, and it seem quite interesting, it also seems to be endorsed by Brother David Steindl-Rast, who, from what I've read of him (online anyway) seems quite cool.
Anyway, I don't know why it matters to people how others express themselves spiritually. I, personally, think Buddhism and Christianity are compatible in some areas. If someone finds Buddhism and Christianity helps them on the way, what's the problem?.
Thank you both for the references, David and Babystars. I have indeed read Thay's various books on Buddhist/Christian dialogue, along with Brother David's wonderful The Ground We Share, and had an inspiring conversation with HHDL and, through interpreters, His Holiness the Karmapa and various Geshes. Merton is great too and puts the case well from the Christian pov.
My point is that we can argue, discuss, debate and compare but it is what we get on and do, how we structure our practice and our lives that matters. As Edith Sitwelll says: "All, in the end, is harvest".
There's another way of coming at this. This would be to start by assuming that all the world's best known prophets and sages are to be trusted, such that the more they seem to us to be passing on the same message the more correct is our interpretation of that message. This approach won't be attractive to everyone but it works, and in my view it leaves the teachings of both Jesus and Budha intact.
Thank you both for the references, David and Babystars. I have indeed read Thay's various books on Buddhist/Christian dialogue, along with Brother David's wonderful The Ground We Share, and had an inspiring conversation with HHDL and, through interpreters, His Holiness the Karmapa and various Geshes. Merton is great too and puts the case well from the Christian pov.
My point is that we can argue, discuss, debate and compare but it is what we get on and do, how we structure our practice and our lives that matters. As Edith Sitwelll says: "All, in the end, is harvest".
There's another way of coming at this. This would be to start by assuming that all the world's best known prophets and sages are to be trusted, such that the more they seem to us to be passing on the same message the more correct is our interpretation of that message. This approach won't be attractive to everyone but it works, and in my view it leaves the teachings of both Jesus and Budha intact.
I think that's true, you can appreciate a Prophet's or Sages message, without watering it down.
There's another way of coming at this. This would be to start by assuming that all the world's best known prophets and sages are to be trusted, such that the more they seem to us to be passing on the same message the more correct is our interpretation of that message. This approach won't be attractive to everyone but it works, and in my view it leaves the teachings of both Jesus and Budha intact.
This seems pretty straightforward. What would you say the message is? I'd vote for unconditional compassion as the highest value and quality to aspire to. Recognizing timeless peace as our inner-most nature, the ending of the subject-object dichotomy, and the ending suffering. These are the contact points I've found with people in other traditions. There can be very different stories around these elements, but these elements shine through.
This is not an objective way to proceed, since you have hand-picked the issues and pre-defined the message. Our variety of views here shows that it's not a straightforward method. It's not immediately obvious that Jesus can be reconciled with Nagarjuna, Al-Halaj with Gurdjieff, Beautiful Painted Arrow with the Buddha, and so forth. It's possible, or so I believe, but very difficult without comparing their philosophies, as opposed to just their soteriology and advice for living, which is often context specific. When we compare their metaphysical schemes we find much clearer evidence.
Well, I took a shot at it.:o I honestly thought those things I mentioned would be uncontroversial to you. It is objective to me, but then our most basic way of seeing is different.
This ... "just their soteriology and advice for living" puts us in different galaxies. It is interesting that there can be such very different ways of seeing. Still I honestly respect you and our differences. With Metta:)
This seems pretty straightforward. What would you say the message is? I'd vote for unconditional compassion as the highest value and quality to aspire to. Recognizing timeless peace as our inner-most nature, the ending of the subject-object dichotomy, and the ending suffering. These are the contact points I've found with people in other traditions. There can be very different stories around these elements, but these elements shine through.
As Florian raises the matter of soteriology, we can notice that the aim of most, if not all, spiritual paths is liberation in some form. There's no difference here, only in the ways in which to obtain it and, as a result, the end of suffering and the realisation of loving kindness wisdom..
We may all be on our individual paths but they all lead up the same mountain range and "the paths of glory lead but to the grave".
Yes. I'm sure that whatever our differences we'd all agree that salvation is the name of the game. Not sure how mentioning soteriology can put me in a different galaxy from anybody. Rich - I fear you've misread me again.
It was this.... "as opposed to just their soteriology" For some the value of a view is in how it serves liberation. Ending of suffering is the point, everything else is means.
Another galaxy doesn't mean unfriendly:). only that we misread each other, because we think very differently.
Sure, but that "just" points to, I think, your honest view on what constitute a more complete and objective approach. This would be consistant with the view you have presented thus far. But then I could be mis-reading you.
I think maybe you've pidgeon-holed me incorrectly and so read my words through a filter which distorts them. Easily done, and we all do it sometimes when discussing emotive issues.
It's not a question of being more complete or more objective. It's a question of utility. It's simply easier, and far more persuasive for outsiders, to show the commonality of religions by examining the universe they describe rather than just pointing to their common teachings on compassion, salvation etc., (e.g. as Huxley does) which the sceptic could say are in agreement only by coincidence or thanks to plagiarism.
In the end the teachings of Buddhism are as they are because the universe is as it is. We can't have 'true' teachings without the universe in which they are true. It's no good saying, as you have, that Buddhist doctrine is false but the teaching on practice are useful. The teaching on practice are useful only because they derive from a true understanding of the nature of reality. After all, if the universe is not as Nagarjuna logically proves it is then the Buddha's teachings are misleading if not false. I don't think you can pick and choose which bits you are going to accept and reject, it's all or nothing.
I realise that you're suspicious, but if you examine the metaphysics of Buddhism you'll find that the Noble Truths emerge naturally. Even the irrelevance of metaphysical speculation to liberation emerges naturally. But Zen practitioners burn their books after they've finished with them, not before. I would be certainly be critical of the view that we can judge the similarities and differences between religions without a complete investigation of their teachings, including the parts that don't normally interest us.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that logical analysis is a substitute for practice, but that it has its place in the scheme of things. 'Horses for courses' is the old adage.
Does that clear up some of our apparent disagreement?
. It's no good saying, as you have, that Buddhist doctrine is false but the teaching on practice are useful. The teaching on practice are useful only because they derive from a true understanding of the nature of reality. After all, if the universe is not as Nagarjuna logically proves it is then the Buddha's teachings are misleading if not false. I don't think you can pick and choose which bits you are going to accept and reject, it's all or nothing.
Well as I have said, not false as opposed to true. True and false appear together. False as in not being the absolute value, not to be held. It is interesting, in another thread I was talking about an attachement to the teaching which is wholesome IME. This attachement isn't an attachment to the view that the Buddha describes the objective true understanding of reality, but instead a devotional relationship with virtue and virtuous people that strengthens aspiration. This attachment falls away. It is not an ultimate value or it would never fall away. The view that the Buddha's is an objective true understanding of reality was something I held to be true, and don't deny now, but I no longer hold it because, frankly, through meditation I realized reality, and so the view fell away. This could be taken the wrong way, but it just means that when you realize that you are reality, a correct understanding is not wrong but just gilding the lily.
I realise that you're suspicious, but if you examine the metaphysics of Buddhism you'll find that the Noble Truths emerge naturally. Even the irrelevance of metaphysical speculation to liberation emerges naturally. But Zen practitioners burn their books after they've finished with them, not before.?
I would be certainly be critical of the view that we can judge the similarities and differences between religions without a complete investigation of their teachings, including the parts that don't normally interest us.?
It depends on the venue doesn't it? It depends on who needs what. But sure I see your perspective., and respect that.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that logical analysis is a substitute for practice, but that it has its place in the scheme of things. 'Horses for courses' is the old adage.
I see where you are coming from, and I dont think you are wrong. Our difference maybe is in where we place values, not around facts as far as they go. But then again we could be mis-reading each other again. Probably.:)
Yes, true and false appear together. Hence Nagarjuna's neutral position. But you don't accept his position as being true, which I find confusing as this exhausts the possibilities.
Our difference revolve exactly around whether Buddhist doctrine is true or not, and I think we're going to have to agree to differ on that. Still, I think we did well to get to the bottom of our disagreement without too much disgruntlement. I've never previously met a practitioner who believed that the doctrine is false, so I've learnt something new.
The idea that Nagarjuna came to a "position" neutral or otherwise is novel to most Buddhist's. He is seen as the best example of using the skillful means of logical discourse to bring itself to an end. That end is not a position, but a letting go of all positions. It is seen as a means in practice for taking you out of thinking about reality to a direct experiential realization. This is how Nagarjuna is regarded by every practicing Buddhist I know, honest. Then again, it isn't written anywhere that people must interpret Nagarjuna, or any part of Buddhism, a certain way. According to another thread many of us play fast and loose with "emptiness"
So yes agreed this is the core difference, and no disgruntlement at all.:)
I'm gaining a strong impression that you haven't investigated these issues. I recommend Garfield, Jay, The Fundamental of the Middle Way, or Khempo Tsultrim Gyamtso, The Sun of Wisdom, Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
As my view is shared by these two authors I'm not inclined to change it.
I do not respect your referring to two books that support your position on Buddhism, and suggesting I read up. I do not respect that.
If you are of the mindset that one must have a metaphysical position, then Nagarjuna must be interpreted as arriving at a neutral position. It is consistent with what you have posted so far. It is consistent with my posts that I interpret the Buddha's teaching as pointing beyond attachement to metaphysical views, including neutral ones, and that Nagarjuna's pointing was just this, played-out to the extreme, for those who were extreme cogitators. A Zen master would just give you a whack, which you sorely need, since Madhyamaka didn't do it..
Whether I am "right" or "wrong" according to your view has no meaning at all in my practice. There are things I am attached to, like my laptop, but metaphysical views aren't one of them.
Likewise. the fact that I see you as amazingly, astoundingly, mind-blowingly stuck in your conceptual cocoon, will not disturb you.
So I propose an end to this dialogue on the terms of your complete correctness, by stating outright, that you are absolutely correct. Your logic and research is impeccable, and I am completely wrong, incorrect, with flawed even infantile logic, and possibly a questionable character. The same goes for all the Buddhist teachers and practitioners, starting way back with my own dear sister, who sold me this nonsense. I honor you Sir. You have overturned my world.
That was all a bit was over the top, I'm tired and feeling loopy:D
Yes, I was also thinking that it's time we called it a day. I was caught out by having to argue for the truth of the Buddha's teachings on a Buddhist forum and probably didn't go about it very well. You're right, though, I am attached to my belief that the teachings are true.
It's a shame that nobody else felt like getting involved since that might have moved us on. Perhaps if you could have cited someone who shared your view that would also have helped. Anyway, enough said.
Perhaps if you could have cited someone who shared your view that would also have helped.
If I understand Richard's statements correctly, you have already cited someone who shares Richard's views; Jay Garfield.
Here is how Garfield characterizes Nagarjuna's thought:
... nothing is either inherently existent, or true in virtue of designating an inherently existent fact.
--Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness, by Jay Garfield in Philosophy East and West, April 1994
Other sources that share Richard's view:
To him, possessing compassion, who taught the real dharma
For the destruction of all views--to him, Gautama, I humbly offer reverence.
--Mulamadhyamakakarikas, by Nagarjuna
It is this same critical dialectic which Nagarjuna elaborates in the Madhyamakakarikas--the dialectic that denies the ultimate validity of any view.
--Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning, by Frederick J. Streng
... causation, existence, impermanence, bondage, and liberation. Nagarjuna's intention is to establish the absence of any substantial or autonomous reality underlying these concepts...
--Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism, entry for Mula-madhyamaka-karikas
I feel that Garfield leaves open the question of whether Nagarjuna held a view of his own. Still, clearly he did, for otherwise he would have had no reason to ask us to abandon all of ours.
If you are saying to me that he did not hold any view, as I think you are, then I would have to ask why he goes to such lengths to prove that all but one metaphysical position is logically indefensible. Why would he leave just one out unless it's his own?
At any rate, he is credited by Garfield and many others as providing Buddhism with a philosophical foundation and not with proving that it doesn't have one. If it is not the case that he provides its philosophical foundation then I am not, after all, a fan of his, and must always wonder why he didn't bother to falsify my view.
His doctrine is more than a metaphysical position, of course, and this may be causing some problems here. Nevertheless, it can be translated into metaphysics as an identifiable position.
We cannot say what the truth is but we can say what it is not. If we do this we end up with a neutral metaphysical position. For this position there would be two worlds and thus two truths. Would it not be an unlikely coincidence if this was not his position?
I feel that Garfield leaves open the question of whether Nagarjuna held a view of his own. Still, clearly he did, for otherwise he would have had no reason to ask us to abandon all of ours.
He asserts that there are two truths, and that they are one; that everything both exists and does not exist; that nothing is existent or nonexistent; that he rejects all philosophical views including his own; that he asserts nothing.
--Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought, by Jay Garfield and Graham Priest in Philosophy East and West, January 2001
If you are saying to me that he did not hold any view, as I think you are, then I would have to ask why he goes to such lengths to prove that all but one metaphysical position is logically indefensible.
He didn't. He went to great lengths to prove that all metaphysical positions that he was aware of are indefensible. There's no evidence that he intentionally left out a position. He explicitly stated that the Buddha taught dharma for the relinquishing of all views, not all views but one.
At any rate, he is credited by Garfield and many others as providing Buddhism with a philosophical foundation and not with proving that it doesn't have one.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he is credited with undermining the philosophical foundations of Buddhism as they existed at his time.
He asserts that there are two truths, and that they are one; that everything both exists and does not exist; that nothing is existent or nonexistent; that he rejects all philosophical views including his own; that he asserts nothing.
Does it not seem to you that to assert this is to adopt a view? It seems pretty obvious to me that it does. Nagarjuna avoids positively asserting a view because his position does not allow him do so without abandoning rigour. Are you suggesting that he did not know the truth? It certainly seems that way.
I doubt that he reduces to absurdity only the metaphysical positions of which he was aware, as if he was incapable of doing better. To suggest this is to belittle his achievement and underestimate his genius, in my opinion.
The ref. to Graham Priest is interesting. I thought he believed that Buddhism is false and that Dialethism is true. Perhaps he's changed his mind.
It is perfectly possible to hold the view that we cannot say what the truth is. Indeed, it's only possible to hold this view if you hold it, if you see what I mean. It's simply a matter of accepting that there is a reason for this to do with the nature of reality, and that it's not just an appeal to ignorance. All apophatic religions share this view of Reality, Tao, Nibbana, God or whatever. It is unavoidable once one includes an unconditioned phenomenon in ones ontology. Bradley repeats N's proof in his metaphysical essay Appearance and Reality in a more discursive manner, and ends up at the same view.
A neutral metaphysical position does not actually state what is true. This is the whole point of it, and why it is given such short thrift in scholastic philosophy, that it clearly implies Middle Way Buddhism and Taoism, if not mysticism in general. I would go so far as to suggest that one meaning of 'Middle Way' is taking the middle path between all positive metaphysical positions. As Richard has said, true and false appear together and must be transcended. This does not entail holding no view, just no view for which any such position is strictly true or false.
Btw, when I say that N is often credited with providing Buddhism with a philosophical foundation I'm stating a fact. Whether he should be so credited is another matter. You clearly think not.
This discussion is very helpful to me, by the way, so please don't think I'm just trying to get my way. I need to understand these objections better. I'm not being disengenious when I say that I haven't met them before.
I doubt that he reduces to absurdity only the metaphysical positions of which he was aware, as if he was incapable of doing better. To suggest this is to belittle his achievement and underestimate his genius, in my opinion.
Give me an example of someone refuting a position that they are unaware of.
It is perfectly possible to hold the view that we cannot say what the truth is. Indeed, it's only possible to hold this view if you hold it, if you see what I mean. It's simply a matter of accepting that there is a reason for this to do with the nature of reality, and that it's not just an appeal to ignorance. All apophatic religions share this view of Reality, Tao, Nibbana, God or whatever. It is unavoidable once one includes an unconditioned phenomenon in ones ontology. Bradley repeats N's proof in his metaphysical essay Appearance and Reality in a more discursive manner, and ends up at the same view.
This is getting rather vague, and the generalizations are getting too sweeping. You stated that you didn't think that Richard had investigated Nagarjuna's position, and that it wasn't the usual Buddhist understanding of Nagarjuna. I've pointed out texts by Garfield and other scholars that contain statements that are essentially the same as Richard's claim that true and false appear together and must be transcended. Garfield's way of saying it is that Nagarjuna held that ultimate truth is conventional truth. Having pointed this out, I've accomplished my goal.
A neutral metaphysical position does not actually state what is true. This is the whole point of it, and why it is given such short thrift in scholastic philosophy, that it clearly implies Middle Way Buddhism and Taoism, if not mysticism in general. I would go so far as to suggest that one meaning of 'Middle Way' is taking the middle path between all positive metaphysical positions. As Richard has said, true and false appear together and must be transcended. This does not entail holding no view, just no view for which any such position is strictly true or false.
Obviously, the statement "truth cannot be known" is a view. It's not a metaphysical view. Similarly, Nagarjuna's arguments represent a view, but saying that doesn't in itself provide support for the claim that it is a metaphysical view. Some people have argued that Nagarjuna was making metaphysical claims, other people have argued otherwise. Garfield argues that Nagarjuna didn't make metaphysical claims, but contented himself with showing the contradictions inherent in other people's metaphysical claims. So Nagarjuna expressed a view of other people's metaphysical positions without taking a metaphysical position himself (according to Garfield).
Btw, when I say that N is often credited with providing Buddhism with a philosophical foundation I'm stating a fact. Whether he should be so credited is another matter. You clearly think not.
Buddhism had philosophical foundations long before Nagarjuna was born. Nagarjuna created the philosophical foundations of the Madhyamika school. It would be fair to say that Madhyamika represents _part_ of the philosophical foundations of Mahayana Buddhism, but there wasn't any Madhyamika influence on non-Mahayana schools that I'm aware of. As I mentioned, the philosophical foundations of the Madhyamika school were a critique of the philosophies already developed by other schools. You could say that Nagarjuna created a philosophical foundation for Buddhism, just as the Abhidharmic philosophers had previously created a different foundation, and the Yogacara philosophers later created yet another foundation.
This discussion is very helpful to me, by the way, so please don't think I'm just trying to get my way. I need to understand these objections better. I'm not being disengenious when I say that I haven't met them before.
I haven't read the book by Garfield that you mentioned, but I have read a couple of Garfield's articles, one published in 1994 and one published in 2001. He's rather consistent in the view he presents of Nagarjuna. I suspect that if you have another look at Garfield's book, you'll discover that you have met these ideas before.
Give me an example of someone refuting a position that they are unaware of.
A misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting such a thing is possible. You proposed that Nagarjuna dealt only with the positions that he was aware of. I was suggesting he was aware of them all and disposed of all of them except his own.
This is getting rather vague, and the generalizations are getting too sweeping. You stated that you didn't think that Richard had investigated Nagarjuna's position, and that it wasn't the usual Buddhist understanding of Nagarjuna. I've pointed out texts by Garfield and other scholars that contain statements that are essentially the same as Richard's claim that true and false appear together and must be transcended. Garfield's way of saying it is that Nagarjuna held that ultimate truth is conventional truth. Having pointed this out, I've accomplished my goal.
How so? As I've already said, I agree that true and false must be transcended. This is the entire basis of my position. I was out of order to say this about booklearning to Richard in the way that I did, and send my apologies, but I was frustrated by the vagueness of the objections.
Obviously, the statement "truth cannot be known" is a view. It's not a metaphysical view. Similarly, Nagarjuna's arguments represent a view, but saying that doesn't in itself provide support for the claim that it is a metaphysical view.
Yes. I think this may be the source of our disagreement. I'm not suggesting that Nagarjuna thought he was proposing a metaphysical position. I have no opinion on this. What I'm suggesting is that given his worldview there is only one metaphysical position which he could endorse. That is, his view, as expressed in his theory of emptiness, implies a metaphyscial position. I've realised, thanks to this discussion, that there are actually two position that might be implied, Dialethism (the view that all metaphysical positions are false, as proposed by Priest, Routley and a few others), and a neutral position, (for which there is one that is not false, as proposed by Heraclitus, Hegel, Bradley and others,).
I'm actually having trouble distinguishing your view from Dialethism since on your account Nagarjuna proves the truth of it. How would you distinguish your philosophical view from that of Priest?
Some people have argued that Nagarjuna was making metaphysical claims, other people have argued otherwise. Garfield argues that Nagarjuna didn't make metaphysical claims, but contented himself with showing the contradictions inherent in other people's metaphysical claims. So Nagarjuna expressed a view of other people's metaphysical positions without taking a metaphysical position himself (according to Garfield).
That is not quite what Garfield says in his book on the Fundamental Verses, if I remember right. He says that Nagarjuna does not express a view to replace those that he refutes. This is not the same as saying that he did not hold a view. Garfield could not know this. It would be like saying that Lao-tsu had no view on the basis of his remark that the eternal Tao cannot be spoken.
As you'll know, N's proof depends on 'abduction,' the elimination of false views to reveal the true or 'best' one, as recommended by Sherlock Holmes for solving cases. Eliminate all the suspects who couldn't have done it and whoever is left over is the perpetrator. If all of them can be eliminated then the crime would have to be a miracle.
Buddhism had philosophical foundations long before Nagarjuna was born. Nagarjuna created the philosophical foundations of the Madhyamika school. It would be fair to say that Madhyamika represents _part_ of the philosophical foundations of Mahayana Buddhism, but there wasn't any Madhyamika influence on non-Mahayana schools that I'm aware of. As I mentioned, the philosophical foundations of the Madhyamika school were a critique of the philosophies already developed by other schools. You could say that Nagarjuna created a philosophical foundation for Buddhism, just as the Abhidharmic philosophers had previously created a different foundation, and the Yogacara philosophers later created yet another foundation.
Yes. My apologies. I should have been specific about Mahayana Buddhism. Still, I see no conflict between his view and that of the Abhidhamma. The Yogacara school I don't know.
I haven't read the book by Garfield that you mentioned, but I have read a couple of Garfield's articles, one published in 1994 and one published in 2001. He's rather consistent in the view he presents of Nagarjuna. I suspect that if you have another look at Garfield's book, you'll discover that you have met these ideas before.
We interpret Garfield in slightly different ways, and have read different texts of his, so maybe this route to a resolution is a dead end. Also, if he is writing articles jointly with Priest then I expect Garfield is a Dialethist rather than a Buddhist. I'll go back and search out the article you cited when I've time.
Let's try the other author I mentioned. In his book on this topic Gyamtso tells me that Nagarjuna proves that nothing really exists. This is a clear and unambiguous statement. It implies a philosophical position, and it implies that there is a truth to these matters. The only metaphyscial position for which nothing really exists is the one I'm defending.
The question I would like to focus on for a moment is this. If Nagarjuna proves that all metaphyscial positions are absurd, and thus by implication false, as you suggest, then what distinguishes his philosophy and that of his schools from the view that the universe is paradoxical and unknowable, as proposed by Dialethism? They seem to be philosophically identical, as indicated by Garfield's partnership with Priest. That is, are you defending Dialethism?
For the sake of the OP perhaps it's worth noting that we haven't wandered off topic. In philosophy the question of whether Buddhism and Christianity are equivalent underneath the window dressing requires a study of their philosophical schemes. I believe they are, but if I have to change my mind about Buddhism as a result of this discussion then I'll have to change my mind about this also.
This is the entire basis of my position. I was out of order to say this about booklearning to Richard in the way that I did, and send my apologies, but I was frustrated by the vagueness of the objections.
.
No apologies please. There is nothing wrong with booklearning and if I was so inclined I would responded with my own list of books on Madhyamaka, but I'm not an academic, and see no proof in books. Our library used to consist of mainly Dharma books that were obsessively referred to and identified with, but they have been given away over time the Sangha library and forgotten, except for some sentimental favourites.
Flavian. The difference may be in the way we experience these metaphysical views. In the kind of practice I have been doing, concepts, views about the truth of things, are experience as objects of awareness. Ideas lose their opaqueness, their solidity, and become transparent. It is an experiential, sensual reality. This is not a complete situation, because I'm full of all kinds of attachments and that can be triggered. But on the level of metaphysical positions or ideas about the true nature of reality, there is no stickyness. There is stickyness around plenty of other things, but not that. It is a matter of having downloaded the practice, and now just focusing on doing it. It is not an intellecual exercise.
A misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting such a thing is possible. You proposed that Nagarjuna dealt only with the positions that he was aware of. I was suggesting he was aware of them all and disposed of all of them except his own.
Nagarjuna was writing for a specific audience; Buddhists engaged in a debate over a particular Abhidharma, possibly the Sarvastivadan. Nagarjuna assumes acceptance of Buddhist concepts like emptiness and dependent co-origination, so he would have had no reason to deal with positions held by other groups who weren't Buddhist or weren't committed to specific Abhidharmic positions. Unless you can show that your position is one held by the people Nagarjuna was debating with, the fact that Nagarjuna didn't deal with it just shows that it was outside the debate. It doesn't provide any evidence that he supported your view.
How so? As I've already said, I agree that true and false must be transcended. This is the entire basis of my position. I was out of order to say this about booklearning to Richard in the way that I did, and send my apologies, but I was frustrated by the vagueness of the objections.
Richard's purpose was soteriological, or as he would put it, he's concerned with practice. Buddhism is a soteriology. The vast majority of people who pursue it are more concerned about the practice of relinquishing views than the philosophical implications of relinquishing views.
What I'm suggesting is that given his worldview there is only one metaphysical position which he could endorse. That is, his view, as expressed in his theory of emptiness, implies a metaphyscial position.
What you haven't shown is that he endorsed any metaphysical position at all. Some scholars say that he did, and some disagree.
I've realised, thanks to this discussion, that there are actually two position that might be implied, Dialethism (the view that all metaphysical positions are false, as proposed by Priest, Routley and a few others), and a neutral position, (for which there is one that is not false, as proposed by Heraclitus, Hegel, Bradley and others,).
I may be wrong, but my understanding of Dialethism is that it holds that both a statement and it's negation may be true. Both A and ~A (not A) may be true. Garfield and Priest seem to be arguing that Nagarjuna's claim that all positions are self-contradictory included Nagarjuna's position, that Nagarjuna was aware of the contradiction, and that he held both sides of the contradiction to be true. In Garfield's conventionalist reading of Nagarjuna, this is possible because both sides of the contradiction are conventional truths.
I'm actually having trouble distinguishing your view from Dialethism since on your account Nagarjuna proves the truth of it. How would you distinguish your philosophical view from that of Priest?
To the best of my recollection, I haven't expressed a personal philosophical view. The topic is Nagarjuna and how he is read by various scholars.
That is not quite what Garfield says in his book on the Fundamental Verses, if I remember right. He says that Nagarjuna does not express a view to replace those that he refutes. This is not the same as saying that he did not hold a view. Garfield could not know this.
Nagarjuna stated that Buddha Dharma leads to relinquishing all views, so we have an explicit statement to work with. The task of a scholar writing about Nagarjuna is to explain either how the views expressed by Nagarjuna lead to not holding a view, or to explain why Nagarjuna didn't mean this literally. Garfield seems to have chosen the first approach.
Also, if he is writing articles jointly with Priest then I expect Garfield is a Dialethist rather than a Buddhist.
The fact that he wrote an article with Priest doesn't tell us anything more than that they agreed on a particular way of interpreting a particular aspect of Nagarjuna's writings.
Let's try the other author I mentioned. In his book on this topic Gyamtso tells me that Nagarjuna proves that nothing really exists. This is a clear and unambiguous statement. It implies a philosophical position, and it implies that there is a truth to these matters. The only metaphyscial position for which nothing really exists is the one I'm defending.
I have sources for statements by Garfield regarding Nagarjuna, so I can see what Garfield said. I don't have sources for Gyamtso.
I don't have the time to pursue this any further. Unfortunately, the fact that you are serious means that I have to spend the time necessary to ensure that I understand you, understand Garfield, and try to avoid logically silly statements. Also, as I mentioned before, I've accomplished what I intended to accomplish. If you are going to continue to study Nagarjuna, there are two things I think you should keep in mind:
1) Every serious modern scholar of Nagarjuna that I know of states unambiguously that Nagarjuna did not claim that nothing is real.
2) For Nagarjuna, there are no unconditioned phenomena.
I understand what you are saying here. You are a practicing Buddhist, as am I, in my pitiful way. Noble Nagarjuna uses logic and reason to show us that reality is empty of any conceptual fabrication that could attempt to describe what it is, but it would be only in practice that the truth of this view can be realised, or any real understanding of it gained. Ergo, there is no point in arguing about all this this stuff. Up to a point I agree.
Still, you might ask yourself in an idle moment why Nagarjuna wrote Fundamental Wisdom. Gyamptso says this.
"The path leading to the direct realization of this inconceivable, genuine nature of reality begins with gaining certainty in this profound view of emptiness. This is an essential step because it is not enough just to read the teachings that say, "All phenomenon are emptiness: the nature of reality is beyond concept," and, without knowing the reasons these teachings are accurate, to accept them on blind faith alone. If we do, we will not remove our doubts, and our mere opinion that the teachings are valid will not do us any good when those doubts come to the surface..."
This would be my view also. Prior to enlightenment and true knowledge it is reassuring to be able to logically prove, to oneself, that all phenomena are emptiness, and that the nature of reality is beyond concept. Gyamptso goes on.
"The way that Nagarjuna helps us to gain certainty is through the use of logical reasoning.This is particulaly important for us in this day and age, when academic enquiry, science, and technology are at the forefront... He teaches us how to determine the true nature of reality for ourselves by logically analyzing the things that appear to us. By analyzing in this we we can gain a stable certainty in the profound view."
Note the use of the phrase 'true nature of reality' and 'profound view.'
All I am proposing is that the true nature of reality and the profound view can be formalised in metaphyscis as a neutral metaphysical position. For this position emptiness is implied but not spoken of. It can be called 'neutral' precisely because it makes no claims about what is beyond concepts other than the claim that it beyond concepts. Nicolas de Cusa puts this as 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories.'
I don't think our views are very different but I'll wait and see.
At any rate, you've done me the favour, by sending me back to Gyamtso and reminding me that Gyamptso's Sun of Wisdom is a thousand times more helpful than Garfield's book, to me at least. The latter is a translation of Nagarjuna's text into the tortuous double-speak that is western philosophical language, a procedure that makes it almost incomprehensible, whereas Gyamtso simply explains it.
Nagarjuna was writing for a specific audience; Buddhists engaged in a debate over a particular Abhidharma, possibly the Sarvastivadan. Nagarjuna assumes acceptance of Buddhist concepts like emptiness and dependent co-origination, so he would have had no reason to deal with positions held by other groups who weren't Buddhist or weren't committed to specific Abhidharmic positions. Unless you can show that your position is one held by the people Nagarjuna was debating with, the fact that Nagarjuna didn't deal with it just shows that it was outside the debate. It doesn't provide any evidence that he supported your view.
According to Gyamtso Nagarujana proves that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. That is also my view. Are you telling me we're mistaken?
Richard's purpose was soteriological, or as he would put it, he's concerned with practice. Buddhism is a soteriology. The vast majority of people who pursue it are more concerned about the practice of relinquishing views than the philosophical implications of relinquishing views.
Do you really think I don't know this? Do you really think I'm such a fool that I could hold an opionion about how to interpret Nagrajuna and not know this? Amazing. It doesn't say a lot for my ability to communicate.
What you haven't shown is that he endorsed any metaphysical position at all. Some scholars say that he did, and some disagree.
Well, to make the idea more palatable let's say, rather, that there is one metaphysical position that endorses him. The truth here is, I believe, that it all depends on how we define a 'metaphysical position.' My earlier disagreement with Richard went a bit deeper, I think, but I suspect that we disagree only about this, or will if we keep going.
I may be wrong, but my understanding of Dialethism is that it holds that both a statement and it's negation may be true. Both A and ~A (not A) may be true. Garfield and Priest seem to be arguing that Nagarjuna's claim that all positions are self-contradictory included Nagarjuna's position, that Nagarjuna was aware of the contradiction, and that he held both sides of the contradiction to be true. In Garfield's conventionalist reading of Nagarjuna, this is possible because both sides of the contradiction are conventional truths.
Sorry, I couldn't quite follow this, and it seems to complicate a simpler issue. Dialethism states that the universe is paradoxical, and, if we interpet Nagarjuna as you do, then so does he. Better still, for this is the precise point of difference between these two view, is to summarise by saying that Dialethism claims that all metaphysical position are absurd, whereas Nagarjuna claims only that all positive metaphysical posotions are absurd. This difference is crucial, since in logic it is all that separates Dialethism from Buddhism. Nagarjuna's claim is not so bold as that made by the dialethists.
To the best of my recollection, I haven't expressed a personal philosophical view. The topic is Nagarjuna and how he is read by various scholars.
Ah. So you may in fact agree with my view and not theirs? I had been assuming the opposite.
Nagarjuna stated that Buddha Dharma leads to relinquishing all views, so we have an explicit statement to work with.
Sorry. but he did not do this. He spent most his life promoting the view he held. His view is there for us all to see. But maybe this is not quite what you meant.
The task of a scholar writing about Nagarjuna is to explain either how the views expressed by Nagarjuna lead to not holding a view, or to explain why Nagarjuna didn't mean this literally. Garfield seems to have chosen the first approach.
Possibly, although in the only book I've read of his I seem to remember he remains agnostic. Neither am I sure I've ever read a passage where Nagarujna says exactly this, but perhaps he does. I think I may have clarified my view a little in my previous post to Richard.
Nagarjuna's works were written to refute the position of the Abhidharmists.
Yes, and anyone else who misunderstood the truth.
The fact that he wrote an article with Priest doesn't tell us anything more than that they agreed on a particular way of interpreting a particular aspect of Nagarjuna's writings.
Yes. This is a great deal, however, since it shows that if we interpret Nagarjuna's proof as these two do then it is not an argument for Buddhism but against it. I do not think Nagarjuna set out to prove the truth of Dialethism.
That something is absurd doesn't imply that it is false.
In that case Nagarjuna was wasting his time constructing his proof and we are both wasting our time having a reasonable conversation, as I've just noticed you've already concluded.
In that case Nagarjuna was wasting his time constructing his proof and we are both wasting our time having a reasonable conversation, as I've just noticed you've already concluded.
Compadre, I've offended you in some way. I apologize. What I actually said was that you are serious, and giving you a serious response takes more time than I can continue to give. The time I've spent so far has not been wasted. It's never a waste to spend time considering some one else's thoughts, whether they are yours, Garfield's, or Nagarjuna's. But I really need to spend time on other things now.
My best wishes for your investigations, whatever they may be.
I've seen that there are people who call themselves Buddhist Christians or those who try to show how they are compatible.
I'm sure it's possible to combine Christianity and Buddhism and all sorts of other -isms. The question is whether a mix-and-match approach like this is really effective.
I must admit that I became a bit agitated at times during our discussion. I've been travelling all over the internet for years discussing these issues, usually in the teeth of fierce opposition, (for few people want to take religion seriously other than as a simple matter of faith), and am well used to being dismissed as a madman. These discussions are part of my research into the question of how to combat the widespread misconceptions about Buddhism that circulate in the scientific community. It's a lost cause from the outset, of course, but it's an interesting hobby. I am not a worldclass expert, but my dissertation on the relationship between mysticism and metaphysics was well received, and none of the objections to my view that you have raised here have been raised by anyone else.
I came here because I thought I'd have a holiday and spend some time with people who'd agree with me. Bad plan. I've never been so well insulted or patronised as I have in this forum. Even my Buddhist friends have been insulted.
This is probably my fault. I'm a lot more used to debating these issues with philosophers who believe that Buddhism is nonsense than with Buddhists, and have found it best to adopt a mode of writing that is terse and formal, partly in order to make it easier to remain rigorous, and partly because I find that much that is written about these isssues for non-Buddhists (or, more generally, 'non-mystics') does not address the issues that concern them (as philosophers, scientists etc) and can sound like ancient 'folk-psychology'. Soteriology is all very well, but for many people in this day and age it is necessary to show that the logic of the Buddhist worldview is secure before they will even engage with the idea that there might be some truth in its doctrine of salvation, or in any such doctrine. For example, many physicists complain that books like the Dancing Wu-Li Masters and the Tao of Physics give them nothing to get their teeth into. I agree with them, and always try to speak in their terms and about their concerns rather than using the sort of language found here. I never, for instance, speak of my own practice. Rather, I try to be dispassionately logical and challenging, and thus make it difficult for people to ignore the issues. Also, I am concerned to establish that there are no weaknesses in my view, and attracting objections is a good way of doing this.
This is an innapropriate approach here, I see now, and as I should have seen in the first place. I came in like a bull in a china shop.
Then, I reacted badly to the assumption that I have no understanding of the issues, as if I had discovered Buddhism yesterday, when a couple of well chosen questions would have established that while my view may be incorrect it is not naive.
But let's put all that behind us.
I suspect our disagreement may have its roots in, or may be illustrated by, the different emphasis given to aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings by the Middle Way Autonomy school, (second turning of the wheel, slight analysis) and the Middle Way Consequence school ( third turning of the wheel, thorough analysis). This is a technical matter on which I'm not an expert, but the two schools take a quite different (but compatible, of course) approach to the question of what we can state about truth, emptiness, Nibbana and so forth. My feeling is that your comments come from the former perspective, mine the latter. But I need another month to think about this possibility. I'm happy to leave it for now.
However, I'm not happy to walk away from the question asked by the OP. The question of whether Buddhism and Christianity are compatible doctrines is central to the future of religion, it seems to me, and possibly central to the future of human society. I believe it will be a major disaster if these two religions are placed forever in opposition to each other. Just my opinion, but one I'm prepared to fight for.
Thank you both for not just walking away. I've learnt a great deal from our disussion, and it has uncovered some issues of which I'd previously been unaware, and which I must learn how to resolve before with my usual hubris I write more about Nagarjuna.
I may return to start a dedicated thread when I've more time and see if we can't find a way of agreeing about all this. To be honest, I think we've all done well not to allow this discussion to get out of hand.
Finally! A rigorous, sometimes heated, but always respectful debate on the internet.
I must admit that I didn't care at all about the subject matter. I only read through to find out if everyone remained friends in the end. I love a happy ending.
However, I'm not happy to walk away from the question asked by the OP. The question of whether Buddhism and Christianity are compatible doctrines is central to the future of religion, it seems to me, and possibly central to the future of human society. I believe it will be a major disaster if these two religions are placed forever in opposition to each other. Just my opinion, but one I'm prepared to fight for.
I wonder, can't they be unequal in content and form, but totally at peace with the other? I seriously doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Transmeta) would be incapable of peacefully sitting at a dinner table with all sorts of religious people.
Doesn't it seem reasonable to say that Christians and Buddhists can reconcile, even while their scriptures are unequal?
I respect your passion for the well being of humankind, you sound like a deeply compassionate and dedicated person. If you temper that passion a little, you might avoid such unhappiness arising when you talk to people.
Hi Florian, there was obviously a struggle occurring on your side of the discussion that I wasn't aware of. In reading your narrative, the thing that pops out is the fact that while discussing this with people who have no reason to study Nagarjuna, your statements about him weren't challenged. Once you started discussing with people who do have reason to study Nagarjuna, your statements were challenged.
For what it's worth, I had no problem with your language.
Once again, my best wishes for your investigations.
Matt - Of course we can all agree to get on. But this has no bearing on whether our religions arise from the same truth.
I'm going to leave this. Clearly there is a battle going on here that has little to do with the facts and everything to do with personalities. The idea that I've not spoken to Buddhists in forming my views on Buddhism prior to visiting this forum, where, of course, all the Buddhists in the world come to chat, is now proposed. I see no point in trying to fight against this sort of thing.
Clearly there is a battle going on here that has little to do with the facts and everything to do with personalities. .
There are honestly different ways of experiencing and knowing "the facts", but sure there are egos involved, yours, mine, everyone who puts his/her finger to the keyboard. Perhaps you could print out this thread and show it to your Buddhist friends? Assuming they agree with you and disagree with the views expressed here, they will understand at the very least where these views are coming from, and put them a context that can further your research.
I have come to the conclusion that Buddhism can be reconciled with Christianity, but it depends on what kind of Buddhism. If we are talking about Tibetan Buddhism, then I think I could see some conflict between the two. But if we are talking about more of a "Buddhism without Beliefs" kind of thing, then yeah, I think they are reconcilable with each other, because of the little to no dogma on the Buddhist side, there is little to no dogma to conflict with the Christian dogma.
However! Recently, after a long while of examining my beliefs, I have come to the conclusion that, while Christianity and Buddhism can be reconciled, Christianity and reality cannot be. I think in the same way we know that Zeus doesn't exist, through science and our understanding (we know there isn't a guy up in the clouds hurling lightning bolts down:P), i think we can also know that the Bible god doesn't exist in the same way.
So anyways, thats my take on it, I've dropped my Christian beliefs now.
Clearly there is a battle going on here that has little to do with the facts and everything to do with personalities.
Looking over the posts, the only person who appears to be experiencing a battle is you. No one else shows signs of having experienced the conflict that you're experiencing. You said that you came in like a bull in a china shop. I personally didn't experience this. My china shop is undisturbed. There have been bulls in my china shop on occasions in the past but you haven't been one of them.
The idea that I've not spoken to Buddhists in forming my views on Buddhism prior to visiting this forum, where, of course, all the Buddhists in the world come to chat, is now proposed.
No one has proposed this. You said that you've debated this with people who aren't Buddhists. People who aren't Buddhists aren't likely to have reason to study something as arcane as Nagarjuna. Most Buddhists don't have any motivation to study Nagarjuna either, but some do, and as you said, you are now encountering objections that you haven't encountered before. I said nothing about whether you had previously talked to Buddhists. I pointed out that your narrative indicated that this was the first time you've discussed this with people familiar with Nagarjuna.
Matt - Of course we can all agree to get on. But this has no bearing on whether our religions arise from the same truth.
Certainly, friend. That quest seems like an unnecessary one, because either we find inner peace and discover that we are looking at the same truth, and be compassionate with each other... or we find inner peace and discover we are looking at different truth, and be compassionate with each other.
I was only hoping to give a possible path to reconcile the aggression, if your motives for this resonance are compassionate and hopeful for humankind.
I seriously doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Transmeta) would be incapable of peacefully sitting at a dinner table with all sorts of religious people.
Of course I could. I love to see interfaith dialogue. When I say not reconcilable, I don't mean that there ought to be hostility.
I'm simply saying that the philosophies are different.
"I'm Buddhist. As far as philosophy is concerned, I may argue with Jesus Christ. But in practices, I fully appreciate his philosophy, his concept, really useful." - Dalai Lama
"Faith in one's own religious tradition. Respect all religious traditions." - Dalai Lama
I have come to the conclusion that Buddhism can be reconciled with Christianity, but it depends on what kind of Buddhism. If we are talking about Tibetan Buddhism, then I think I could see some conflict between the two. But if we are talking about more of a "Buddhism without Beliefs" kind of thing, then yeah, I think they are reconcilable with each other, because of the little to no dogma on the Buddhist side, there is little to no dogma to conflict with the Christian dogma.
However! Recently, after a long while of examining my beliefs, I have come to the conclusion that, while Christianity and Buddhism can be reconciled, Christianity and reality cannot be. I think in the same way we know that Zeus doesn't exist, through science and our understanding (we know there isn't a guy up in the clouds hurling lightning bolts down:P), i think we can also know that the Bible god doesn't exist in the same way.
So anyways, thats my take on it, I've dropped my Christian beliefs now.
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Personally, I think YHWH, and other Gods do exist, but, they're just not all powerful, or all knowing. Also, there are Pagans who exist who would point out that Zeus is very real, to them anyway !.
Also, there are Pagans who exist who would point out that Zeus is very real, to them anyway !.
Well, I suppose here we get into the definition of "real." :P But something seeming real to someone, and something being objectively real and manifesting in reality are two very different things. So far, no one has demonstrated any of the god claims to be true, so there is no reason to believe in any of them any more than leprechauns. All of the god claims cannot be true, as many, are contradictory with others (though many can also be compatible with others.) So all of the god claims cannot be true, but they can all be false, and some of them must be false, and yet many theists, from whatever religion, claim to *know* the god and that it exists, so we know that there can be a placebo effect of sorts, we can convince ourselves that something is true or that we are experiencing something, even when it is not the case. But even if the particular god in question isn't real(be it Zeus or Yahweh), it can still serve as a powerful psychological function. I think this is where people start saying "well, it is real to me", because, in a sense it is, because the comfort or peace or joy they recieve from that concept is very real. However, I feel confident in saying that while the comfort or joy is real, the source which they think it comes from (if they are claiming a god-concept source that contradicts reality) is not. I think it more likely that it is just a psychological issue rather than a supernatural one.
I must say, while I respect your belief, I am a bit confused how one can say they believe that the Bible god as well as other gods exist, because if someone subscribes to the idea of the bible god, then they subscribe to the idea that he is the only god (unless they pick and choose parts of the bible to believe. I have heard it called the big book of multiple choice before:P haha) But, in this, we may be talking about two different Yahwehs. If I said I believed in Ra (the Egyptian sun god, i think) for example, but when I described this god, I said that it was a little girl in a black dress who steals socks, then even though I am talking about Ra, calling it Ra, it is still a very different god concept than the god concept the egyptians had. So when I refer to Yahweh not being real, and contradicting with reality, I am referring to the Yahweh god-concept as presented through a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, which contradicts with what we know about reality. You may have a slightly different god concept called Yahweh, I do not know, but it sounds like it (to me at least:winkc:)
Anyways, I just don't believe in the concept of god in general due to the lack of evidence, though I think it is most likely not true, and I feel confident in saying that certain god concepts are false (the ones that contradict with what we know about reality.)
But, thats where I stand right now, and my view is, of course, subject to change upon incoming evidence:)
GenGalsap - Just before moving on I'm going to aplogise for being oversensitive. I see why you thought I had spoken to few people about my view. Actually I've spoken to everyone I can find who'll sit still long enough, many of whom were Buddhists and Christians.
The first person with any claim to authority that I spoke to at length about the logic of Buddhism was George Spencer Brown. His best known book is Laws of Form, in which he explains how form arises in emptiness. He declares himself to be a buddha. He was a close friend of Wei Wu Wei the advaitan philosopher, who inspired the youthful Ramesh Balsekar, whose book 'The Ultimate Understanding' is a favourite of mine. We spoke at some length and agreed about everything. What Brown does in Laws of Form is to translate Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness into a simple mathematical calculus.
The reason it is possible to be sure that Nagarjuna did not prove that all views are absurd is that it is not possible to do it. This is why I can be so confident that he did not do this.
Nagarjuna uses the dialectic to refute all positive metaphysical positions, or all extreme views. There is, however, one view that the dialectic cannot refute. This can be demonstrated. Take the question of whether the universe begins or does not begin. It is possible to refute both these views in the dialectic, by reducing them to absurdity in the manner of Nagarjuna (and much as Zeno refutes our usual notions of time and motion). The view that this logic cannot refute is one for which the universe cannot be said to begin or not-begin. Nobody can refute this view using dialectic logic, and it is usually called 'illogical' for this reason, rather than absurd.
It is not a matter of interpretation but a matter of logic. It is simply not possible that Nagarjuna refutes all views by his dialectic method. God himself couldn't do it. This is as we would expect, for it would be odd if we could refute the truth.
Regarding the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, it is surely our choice whether or not they are compatible. It is possible to interpret Jesus a saying what the Buddha says and possible to interpet him as saying something utterly different. As the former interpretation is possible then it seems likely to many people that it is the correct interpretation. RichardthePilgrim speaks much sense about this. However, there is nothing that can force us to take this view, since there are many interpretations. In the view of the Christian theologian Keith Ward it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe that the objective God taught by large parts of the church does not exist. That is, it is possible to call oneself a Christian and yet agree with Redsaint about God. We do not have to take this view, but if we want to there is a great deal of support for it and much supporting evidence that it was the view taught by Jesus. Yes, Jesus talks a lot about this God, but Christianty has its own 'turnings of the wheel.'
The main thing is that on the evidence, and in respect of the work of Christian and Buddhists scholars, it is not necessary to take the view that they are incompatible. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible to settle this question by analysis. I have one Christian friend who believes that Buddhism is the work of the Devil, and one (many years in a closed Christian community and now a Buddhist who'se taken the vow) who can't see any significant difference.
That'll be my last post here for a long time. Thanks to everyone for the chat.
in which he explains how form arises in emptiness. .
Form does not arise in emptiness. It only appears that way until emptiness is clarified, once emptiness is clarified that perception gives-way to the non-duality of form and emptiness. No form= no emptiness, no emptiness= no form.
Don't roll by this Florian. There is something here that may be of use to your research.
Well, I suppose here we get into the definition of "real." :P But something seeming real to someone, and something being objectively real and manifesting in reality are two very different things. So far, no one has demonstrated any of the god claims to be true, so there is no reason to believe in any of them any more than leprechauns. All of the god claims cannot be true, as many, are contradictory with others (though many can also be compatible with others.) So all of the god claims cannot be true, but they can all be false, and some of them must be false, and yet many theists, from whatever religion, claim to *know* the god and that it exists, so we know that there can be a placebo effect of sorts, we can convince ourselves that something is true or that we are experiencing something, even when it is not the case. But even if the particular god in question isn't real(be it Zeus or Yahweh), it can still serve as a powerful psychological function. I think this is where people start saying "well, it is real to me", because, in a sense it is, because the comfort or peace or joy they recieve from that concept is very real. However, I feel confident in saying that while the comfort or joy is real, the source which they think it comes from (if they are claiming a god-concept source that contradicts reality) is not. I think it more likely that it is just a psychological issue rather than a supernatural one.
I agree, pretty much, with what you said, like, I can't prove that all the Gods people worship exist, but, I do know that it does give people comfort, meaning, and helps them in their search for Enlightenment, and that's all that matters to me.
I must say, while I respect your belief, I am a bit confused how one can say they believe that the Bible god as well as other gods exist, because if someone subscribes to the idea of the bible god, then they subscribe to the idea that he is the only god (unless they pick and choose parts of the bible to believe. I have heard it called the big book of multiple choice before:P haha) But, in this, we may be talking about two different Yahwehs. If I said I believed in Ra (the Egyptian sun god, i think) for example, but when I described this god, I said that it was a little girl in a black dress who steals socks, then even though I am talking about Ra, calling it Ra, it is still a very different god concept than the god concept the egyptians had. So when I refer to Yahweh not being real, and contradicting with reality, I am referring to the Yahweh god-concept as presented through a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, which contradicts with what we know about reality. You may have a slightly different god concept called Yahweh, I do not know, but it sounds like it (to me at least:winkc:)
Personally, I think if one God exists, then others probably exist as well, whether or not, they're created by peoples belief (like a Tibetan tulpa) or have some kind of existence separate from humanity, I don't know.
Comments
Anyway, I don't know why it matters to people how others express themselves spiritually. I, personally, think Buddhism and Christianity are compatible in some areas. If someone finds Buddhism and Christianity helps them on the way, what's the problem?.
My point is that we can argue, discuss, debate and compare but it is what we get on and do, how we structure our practice and our lives that matters. As Edith Sitwelll says: "All, in the end, is harvest".
That's very true
I think that's true, you can appreciate a Prophet's or Sages message, without watering it down.
This ... "just their soteriology and advice for living" puts us in different galaxies. It is interesting that there can be such very different ways of seeing. Still I honestly respect you and our differences. With Metta:)
Richard
As Florian raises the matter of soteriology, we can notice that the aim of most, if not all, spiritual paths is liberation in some form. There's no difference here, only in the ways in which to obtain it and, as a result, the end of suffering and the realisation of loving kindness wisdom..
We may all be on our individual paths but they all lead up the same mountain range and "the paths of glory lead but to the grave".
Another galaxy doesn't mean unfriendly:). only that we misread each other, because we think very differently.
I think maybe you've pidgeon-holed me incorrectly and so read my words through a filter which distorts them. Easily done, and we all do it sometimes when discussing emotive issues.
It's not a question of being more complete or more objective. It's a question of utility. It's simply easier, and far more persuasive for outsiders, to show the commonality of religions by examining the universe they describe rather than just pointing to their common teachings on compassion, salvation etc., (e.g. as Huxley does) which the sceptic could say are in agreement only by coincidence or thanks to plagiarism.
In the end the teachings of Buddhism are as they are because the universe is as it is. We can't have 'true' teachings without the universe in which they are true. It's no good saying, as you have, that Buddhist doctrine is false but the teaching on practice are useful. The teaching on practice are useful only because they derive from a true understanding of the nature of reality. After all, if the universe is not as Nagarjuna logically proves it is then the Buddha's teachings are misleading if not false. I don't think you can pick and choose which bits you are going to accept and reject, it's all or nothing.
I realise that you're suspicious, but if you examine the metaphysics of Buddhism you'll find that the Noble Truths emerge naturally. Even the irrelevance of metaphysical speculation to liberation emerges naturally. But Zen practitioners burn their books after they've finished with them, not before. I would be certainly be critical of the view that we can judge the similarities and differences between religions without a complete investigation of their teachings, including the parts that don't normally interest us.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that logical analysis is a substitute for practice, but that it has its place in the scheme of things. 'Horses for courses' is the old adage.
Does that clear up some of our apparent disagreement?
yes I agree. It depends on the venue doesn't it? It depends on who needs what. But sure I see your perspective., and respect that. I see where you are coming from, and I dont think you are wrong. Our difference maybe is in where we place values, not around facts as far as they go. But then again we could be mis-reading each other again
Our difference revolve exactly around whether Buddhist doctrine is true or not, and I think we're going to have to agree to differ on that. Still, I think we did well to get to the bottom of our disagreement without too much disgruntlement. I've never previously met a practitioner who believed that the doctrine is false, so I've learnt something new.
So yes agreed this is the core difference, and no disgruntlement at all.:)
As my view is shared by these two authors I'm not inclined to change it.
If you are of the mindset that one must have a metaphysical position, then Nagarjuna must be interpreted as arriving at a neutral position. It is consistent with what you have posted so far. It is consistent with my posts that I interpret the Buddha's teaching as pointing beyond attachement to metaphysical views, including neutral ones, and that Nagarjuna's pointing was just this, played-out to the extreme, for those who were extreme cogitators. A Zen master would just give you a whack, which you sorely need, since Madhyamaka didn't do it..
Whether I am "right" or "wrong" according to your view has no meaning at all in my practice. There are things I am attached to, like my laptop, but metaphysical views aren't one of them.
Likewise. the fact that I see you as amazingly, astoundingly, mind-blowingly stuck in your conceptual cocoon, will not disturb you.
So I propose an end to this dialogue on the terms of your complete correctness, by stating outright, that you are absolutely correct. Your logic and research is impeccable, and I am completely wrong, incorrect, with flawed even infantile logic, and possibly a questionable character. The same goes for all the Buddhist teachers and practitioners, starting way back with my own dear sister, who sold me this nonsense. I honor you Sir. You have overturned my world.
That was all a bit was over the top, I'm tired and feeling loopy:D
It's a shame that nobody else felt like getting involved since that might have moved us on. Perhaps if you could have cited someone who shared your view that would also have helped. Anyway, enough said.
Here is how Garfield characterizes Nagarjuna's thought: --Dependent Arising and the Emptiness of Emptiness, by Jay Garfield in Philosophy East and West, April 1994
Other sources that share Richard's view:
--Mulamadhyamakakarikas, by Nagarjuna
--Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning, by Frederick J. Streng
--Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism, entry for Mula-madhyamaka-karikas
I feel that Garfield leaves open the question of whether Nagarjuna held a view of his own. Still, clearly he did, for otherwise he would have had no reason to ask us to abandon all of ours.
If you are saying to me that he did not hold any view, as I think you are, then I would have to ask why he goes to such lengths to prove that all but one metaphysical position is logically indefensible. Why would he leave just one out unless it's his own?
At any rate, he is credited by Garfield and many others as providing Buddhism with a philosophical foundation and not with proving that it doesn't have one. If it is not the case that he provides its philosophical foundation then I am not, after all, a fan of his, and must always wonder why he didn't bother to falsify my view.
His doctrine is more than a metaphysical position, of course, and this may be causing some problems here. Nevertheless, it can be translated into metaphysics as an identifiable position.
We cannot say what the truth is but we can say what it is not. If we do this we end up with a neutral metaphysical position. For this position there would be two worlds and thus two truths. Would it not be an unlikely coincidence if this was not his position?
He didn't. He went to great lengths to prove that all metaphysical positions that he was aware of are indefensible. There's no evidence that he intentionally left out a position. He explicitly stated that the Buddha taught dharma for the relinquishing of all views, not all views but one.
I think it would be more accurate to say that he is credited with undermining the philosophical foundations of Buddhism as they existed at his time.
A metaphysical position asserts that something is true. If we can't say what truth is, then we can't support a metaphysical position.
I doubt that he reduces to absurdity only the metaphysical positions of which he was aware, as if he was incapable of doing better. To suggest this is to belittle his achievement and underestimate his genius, in my opinion.
The ref. to Graham Priest is interesting. I thought he believed that Buddhism is false and that Dialethism is true. Perhaps he's changed his mind.
It is perfectly possible to hold the view that we cannot say what the truth is. Indeed, it's only possible to hold this view if you hold it, if you see what I mean. It's simply a matter of accepting that there is a reason for this to do with the nature of reality, and that it's not just an appeal to ignorance. All apophatic religions share this view of Reality, Tao, Nibbana, God or whatever. It is unavoidable once one includes an unconditioned phenomenon in ones ontology. Bradley repeats N's proof in his metaphysical essay Appearance and Reality in a more discursive manner, and ends up at the same view.
A neutral metaphysical position does not actually state what is true. This is the whole point of it, and why it is given such short thrift in scholastic philosophy, that it clearly implies Middle Way Buddhism and Taoism, if not mysticism in general. I would go so far as to suggest that one meaning of 'Middle Way' is taking the middle path between all positive metaphysical positions. As Richard has said, true and false appear together and must be transcended. This does not entail holding no view, just no view for which any such position is strictly true or false.
Btw, when I say that N is often credited with providing Buddhism with a philosophical foundation I'm stating a fact. Whether he should be so credited is another matter. You clearly think not.
This discussion is very helpful to me, by the way, so please don't think I'm just trying to get my way. I need to understand these objections better. I'm not being disengenious when I say that I haven't met them before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTCogarppGs&feature=related
two different types of fingers pointing to the same thing is the view
This is getting rather vague, and the generalizations are getting too sweeping. You stated that you didn't think that Richard had investigated Nagarjuna's position, and that it wasn't the usual Buddhist understanding of Nagarjuna. I've pointed out texts by Garfield and other scholars that contain statements that are essentially the same as Richard's claim that true and false appear together and must be transcended. Garfield's way of saying it is that Nagarjuna held that ultimate truth is conventional truth. Having pointed this out, I've accomplished my goal.
Obviously, the statement "truth cannot be known" is a view. It's not a metaphysical view. Similarly, Nagarjuna's arguments represent a view, but saying that doesn't in itself provide support for the claim that it is a metaphysical view. Some people have argued that Nagarjuna was making metaphysical claims, other people have argued otherwise. Garfield argues that Nagarjuna didn't make metaphysical claims, but contented himself with showing the contradictions inherent in other people's metaphysical claims. So Nagarjuna expressed a view of other people's metaphysical positions without taking a metaphysical position himself (according to Garfield).
Buddhism had philosophical foundations long before Nagarjuna was born. Nagarjuna created the philosophical foundations of the Madhyamika school. It would be fair to say that Madhyamika represents _part_ of the philosophical foundations of Mahayana Buddhism, but there wasn't any Madhyamika influence on non-Mahayana schools that I'm aware of. As I mentioned, the philosophical foundations of the Madhyamika school were a critique of the philosophies already developed by other schools. You could say that Nagarjuna created a philosophical foundation for Buddhism, just as the Abhidharmic philosophers had previously created a different foundation, and the Yogacara philosophers later created yet another foundation.
I haven't read the book by Garfield that you mentioned, but I have read a couple of Garfield's articles, one published in 1994 and one published in 2001. He's rather consistent in the view he presents of Nagarjuna. I suspect that if you have another look at Garfield's book, you'll discover that you have met these ideas before.
How so? As I've already said, I agree that true and false must be transcended. This is the entire basis of my position. I was out of order to say this about booklearning to Richard in the way that I did, and send my apologies, but I was frustrated by the vagueness of the objections.
Yes. I think this may be the source of our disagreement. I'm not suggesting that Nagarjuna thought he was proposing a metaphysical position. I have no opinion on this. What I'm suggesting is that given his worldview there is only one metaphysical position which he could endorse. That is, his view, as expressed in his theory of emptiness, implies a metaphyscial position. I've realised, thanks to this discussion, that there are actually two position that might be implied, Dialethism (the view that all metaphysical positions are false, as proposed by Priest, Routley and a few others), and a neutral position, (for which there is one that is not false, as proposed by Heraclitus, Hegel, Bradley and others,).
I'm actually having trouble distinguishing your view from Dialethism since on your account Nagarjuna proves the truth of it. How would you distinguish your philosophical view from that of Priest?
That is not quite what Garfield says in his book on the Fundamental Verses, if I remember right. He says that Nagarjuna does not express a view to replace those that he refutes. This is not the same as saying that he did not hold a view. Garfield could not know this. It would be like saying that Lao-tsu had no view on the basis of his remark that the eternal Tao cannot be spoken.
As you'll know, N's proof depends on 'abduction,' the elimination of false views to reveal the true or 'best' one, as recommended by Sherlock Holmes for solving cases. Eliminate all the suspects who couldn't have done it and whoever is left over is the perpetrator. If all of them can be eliminated then the crime would have to be a miracle.
Yes. My apologies. I should have been specific about Mahayana Buddhism. Still, I see no conflict between his view and that of the Abhidhamma. The Yogacara school I don't know.
We interpret Garfield in slightly different ways, and have read different texts of his, so maybe this route to a resolution is a dead end. Also, if he is writing articles jointly with Priest then I expect Garfield is a Dialethist rather than a Buddhist. I'll go back and search out the article you cited when I've time.
Let's try the other author I mentioned. In his book on this topic Gyamtso tells me that Nagarjuna proves that nothing really exists. This is a clear and unambiguous statement. It implies a philosophical position, and it implies that there is a truth to these matters. The only metaphyscial position for which nothing really exists is the one I'm defending.
The question I would like to focus on for a moment is this. If Nagarjuna proves that all metaphyscial positions are absurd, and thus by implication false, as you suggest, then what distinguishes his philosophy and that of his schools from the view that the universe is paradoxical and unknowable, as proposed by Dialethism? They seem to be philosophically identical, as indicated by Garfield's partnership with Priest. That is, are you defending Dialethism?
For the sake of the OP perhaps it's worth noting that we haven't wandered off topic. In philosophy the question of whether Buddhism and Christianity are equivalent underneath the window dressing requires a study of their philosophical schemes. I believe they are, but if I have to change my mind about Buddhism as a result of this discussion then I'll have to change my mind about this also.
Different strokes.
Richard's purpose was soteriological, or as he would put it, he's concerned with practice. Buddhism is a soteriology. The vast majority of people who pursue it are more concerned about the practice of relinquishing views than the philosophical implications of relinquishing views.
What you haven't shown is that he endorsed any metaphysical position at all. Some scholars say that he did, and some disagree.
I may be wrong, but my understanding of Dialethism is that it holds that both a statement and it's negation may be true. Both A and ~A (not A) may be true. Garfield and Priest seem to be arguing that Nagarjuna's claim that all positions are self-contradictory included Nagarjuna's position, that Nagarjuna was aware of the contradiction, and that he held both sides of the contradiction to be true. In Garfield's conventionalist reading of Nagarjuna, this is possible because both sides of the contradiction are conventional truths.
To the best of my recollection, I haven't expressed a personal philosophical view. The topic is Nagarjuna and how he is read by various scholars.
Nagarjuna stated that Buddha Dharma leads to relinquishing all views, so we have an explicit statement to work with. The task of a scholar writing about Nagarjuna is to explain either how the views expressed by Nagarjuna lead to not holding a view, or to explain why Nagarjuna didn't mean this literally. Garfield seems to have chosen the first approach.
Nagarjuna's works were written to refute the position of the Abhidharmists.
The fact that he wrote an article with Priest doesn't tell us anything more than that they agreed on a particular way of interpreting a particular aspect of Nagarjuna's writings.
I have sources for statements by Garfield regarding Nagarjuna, so I can see what Garfield said. I don't have sources for Gyamtso.
I don't suggest this. That something is absurd doesn't imply that it is false.
Nagarjuna tried to show that all views are self-contradictory. In Garfield's reading, this includes Nagarjuna's own views.
What does that have to do with Nagarjuna?
I don't have the time to pursue this any further. Unfortunately, the fact that you are serious means that I have to spend the time necessary to ensure that I understand you, understand Garfield, and try to avoid logically silly statements. Also, as I mentioned before, I've accomplished what I intended to accomplish. If you are going to continue to study Nagarjuna, there are two things I think you should keep in mind:
1) Every serious modern scholar of Nagarjuna that I know of states unambiguously that Nagarjuna did not claim that nothing is real.
2) For Nagarjuna, there are no unconditioned phenomena.
Best of luck.
I understand what you are saying here. You are a practicing Buddhist, as am I, in my pitiful way. Noble Nagarjuna uses logic and reason to show us that reality is empty of any conceptual fabrication that could attempt to describe what it is, but it would be only in practice that the truth of this view can be realised, or any real understanding of it gained. Ergo, there is no point in arguing about all this this stuff. Up to a point I agree.
Still, you might ask yourself in an idle moment why Nagarjuna wrote Fundamental Wisdom. Gyamptso says this.
"The path leading to the direct realization of this inconceivable, genuine nature of reality begins with gaining certainty in this profound view of emptiness. This is an essential step because it is not enough just to read the teachings that say, "All phenomenon are emptiness: the nature of reality is beyond concept," and, without knowing the reasons these teachings are accurate, to accept them on blind faith alone. If we do, we will not remove our doubts, and our mere opinion that the teachings are valid will not do us any good when those doubts come to the surface..."
This would be my view also. Prior to enlightenment and true knowledge it is reassuring to be able to logically prove, to oneself, that all phenomena are emptiness, and that the nature of reality is beyond concept. Gyamptso goes on.
"The way that Nagarjuna helps us to gain certainty is through the use of logical reasoning.This is particulaly important for us in this day and age, when academic enquiry, science, and technology are at the forefront... He teaches us how to determine the true nature of reality for ourselves by logically analyzing the things that appear to us. By analyzing in this we we can gain a stable certainty in the profound view."
Note the use of the phrase 'true nature of reality' and 'profound view.'
All I am proposing is that the true nature of reality and the profound view can be formalised in metaphyscis as a neutral metaphysical position. For this position emptiness is implied but not spoken of. It can be called 'neutral' precisely because it makes no claims about what is beyond concepts other than the claim that it beyond concepts. Nicolas de Cusa puts this as 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories.'
I don't think our views are very different but I'll wait and see.
At any rate, you've done me the favour, by sending me back to Gyamtso and reminding me that Gyamptso's Sun of Wisdom is a thousand times more helpful than Garfield's book, to me at least. The latter is a translation of Nagarjuna's text into the tortuous double-speak that is western philosophical language, a procedure that makes it almost incomprehensible, whereas Gyamtso simply explains it.
Do you really think I don't know this? Do you really think I'm such a fool that I could hold an opionion about how to interpret Nagrajuna and not know this? Amazing. It doesn't say a lot for my ability to communicate.
Well, to make the idea more palatable let's say, rather, that there is one metaphysical position that endorses him. The truth here is, I believe, that it all depends on how we define a 'metaphysical position.' My earlier disagreement with Richard went a bit deeper, I think, but I suspect that we disagree only about this, or will if we keep going.
Sorry, I couldn't quite follow this, and it seems to complicate a simpler issue. Dialethism states that the universe is paradoxical, and, if we interpet Nagarjuna as you do, then so does he. Better still, for this is the precise point of difference between these two view, is to summarise by saying that Dialethism claims that all metaphysical position are absurd, whereas Nagarjuna claims only that all positive metaphysical posotions are absurd. This difference is crucial, since in logic it is all that separates Dialethism from Buddhism. Nagarjuna's claim is not so bold as that made by the dialethists.
Ah. So you may in fact agree with my view and not theirs? I had been assuming the opposite.
Sorry. but he did not do this. He spent most his life promoting the view he held. His view is there for us all to see. But maybe this is not quite what you meant.
Possibly, although in the only book I've read of his I seem to remember he remains agnostic. Neither am I sure I've ever read a passage where Nagarujna says exactly this, but perhaps he does. I think I may have clarified my view a little in my previous post to Richard.
Yes, and anyone else who misunderstood the truth.
Yes. This is a great deal, however, since it shows that if we interpret Nagarjuna's proof as these two do then it is not an argument for Buddhism but against it. I do not think Nagarjuna set out to prove the truth of Dialethism.
In that case Nagarjuna was wasting his time constructing his proof and we are both wasting our time having a reasonable conversation, as I've just noticed you've already concluded.
My best wishes for your investigations, whatever they may be.
I'm sure it's possible to combine Christianity and Buddhism and all sorts of other -isms. The question is whether a mix-and-match approach like this is really effective.
P
I must admit that I became a bit agitated at times during our discussion. I've been travelling all over the internet for years discussing these issues, usually in the teeth of fierce opposition, (for few people want to take religion seriously other than as a simple matter of faith), and am well used to being dismissed as a madman. These discussions are part of my research into the question of how to combat the widespread misconceptions about Buddhism that circulate in the scientific community. It's a lost cause from the outset, of course, but it's an interesting hobby. I am not a worldclass expert, but my dissertation on the relationship between mysticism and metaphysics was well received, and none of the objections to my view that you have raised here have been raised by anyone else.
I came here because I thought I'd have a holiday and spend some time with people who'd agree with me. Bad plan. I've never been so well insulted or patronised as I have in this forum. Even my Buddhist friends have been insulted.
This is probably my fault. I'm a lot more used to debating these issues with philosophers who believe that Buddhism is nonsense than with Buddhists, and have found it best to adopt a mode of writing that is terse and formal, partly in order to make it easier to remain rigorous, and partly because I find that much that is written about these isssues for non-Buddhists (or, more generally, 'non-mystics') does not address the issues that concern them (as philosophers, scientists etc) and can sound like ancient 'folk-psychology'. Soteriology is all very well, but for many people in this day and age it is necessary to show that the logic of the Buddhist worldview is secure before they will even engage with the idea that there might be some truth in its doctrine of salvation, or in any such doctrine. For example, many physicists complain that books like the Dancing Wu-Li Masters and the Tao of Physics give them nothing to get their teeth into. I agree with them, and always try to speak in their terms and about their concerns rather than using the sort of language found here. I never, for instance, speak of my own practice. Rather, I try to be dispassionately logical and challenging, and thus make it difficult for people to ignore the issues. Also, I am concerned to establish that there are no weaknesses in my view, and attracting objections is a good way of doing this.
This is an innapropriate approach here, I see now, and as I should have seen in the first place. I came in like a bull in a china shop.
Then, I reacted badly to the assumption that I have no understanding of the issues, as if I had discovered Buddhism yesterday, when a couple of well chosen questions would have established that while my view may be incorrect it is not naive.
But let's put all that behind us.
I suspect our disagreement may have its roots in, or may be illustrated by, the different emphasis given to aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings by the Middle Way Autonomy school, (second turning of the wheel, slight analysis) and the Middle Way Consequence school ( third turning of the wheel, thorough analysis). This is a technical matter on which I'm not an expert, but the two schools take a quite different (but compatible, of course) approach to the question of what we can state about truth, emptiness, Nibbana and so forth. My feeling is that your comments come from the former perspective, mine the latter. But I need another month to think about this possibility. I'm happy to leave it for now.
However, I'm not happy to walk away from the question asked by the OP. The question of whether Buddhism and Christianity are compatible doctrines is central to the future of religion, it seems to me, and possibly central to the future of human society. I believe it will be a major disaster if these two religions are placed forever in opposition to each other. Just my opinion, but one I'm prepared to fight for.
Thank you both for not just walking away. I've learnt a great deal from our disussion, and it has uncovered some issues of which I'd previously been unaware, and which I must learn how to resolve before with my usual hubris I write more about Nagarjuna.
I may return to start a dedicated thread when I've more time and see if we can't find a way of agreeing about all this. To be honest, I think we've all done well not to allow this discussion to get out of hand.
Let us depart in peace...
Florian
Finally! A rigorous, sometimes heated, but always respectful debate on the internet.
I must admit that I didn't care at all about the subject matter. I only read through to find out if everyone remained friends in the end. I love a happy ending.
I wonder, can't they be unequal in content and form, but totally at peace with the other? I seriously doubt that anyone here (except perhaps Transmeta) would be incapable of peacefully sitting at a dinner table with all sorts of religious people.
Doesn't it seem reasonable to say that Christians and Buddhists can reconcile, even while their scriptures are unequal?
I respect your passion for the well being of humankind, you sound like a deeply compassionate and dedicated person. If you temper that passion a little, you might avoid such unhappiness arising when you talk to people.
With warmth,
Matt
For what it's worth, I had no problem with your language.
Once again, my best wishes for your investigations.
I'm going to leave this. Clearly there is a battle going on here that has little to do with the facts and everything to do with personalities. The idea that I've not spoken to Buddhists in forming my views on Buddhism prior to visiting this forum, where, of course, all the Buddhists in the world come to chat, is now proposed. I see no point in trying to fight against this sort of thing.
However! Recently, after a long while of examining my beliefs, I have come to the conclusion that, while Christianity and Buddhism can be reconciled, Christianity and reality cannot be. I think in the same way we know that Zeus doesn't exist, through science and our understanding (we know there isn't a guy up in the clouds hurling lightning bolts down:P), i think we can also know that the Bible god doesn't exist in the same way.
So anyways, thats my take on it, I've dropped my Christian beliefs now.
No one has proposed this. You said that you've debated this with people who aren't Buddhists. People who aren't Buddhists aren't likely to have reason to study something as arcane as Nagarjuna. Most Buddhists don't have any motivation to study Nagarjuna either, but some do, and as you said, you are now encountering objections that you haven't encountered before. I said nothing about whether you had previously talked to Buddhists. I pointed out that your narrative indicated that this was the first time you've discussed this with people familiar with Nagarjuna.
Certainly, friend. That quest seems like an unnecessary one, because either we find inner peace and discover that we are looking at the same truth, and be compassionate with each other... or we find inner peace and discover we are looking at different truth, and be compassionate with each other.
I was only hoping to give a possible path to reconcile the aggression, if your motives for this resonance are compassionate and hopeful for humankind.
With warmth,
Matt
Of course I could. I love to see interfaith dialogue. When I say not reconcilable, I don't mean that there ought to be hostility.
I'm simply saying that the philosophies are different.
"I'm Buddhist. As far as philosophy is concerned, I may argue with Jesus Christ. But in practices, I fully appreciate his philosophy, his concept, really useful." - Dalai Lama
"Faith in one's own religious tradition. Respect all religious traditions." - Dalai Lama
.
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Personally, I think YHWH, and other Gods do exist, but, they're just not all powerful, or all knowing. Also, there are Pagans who exist who would point out that Zeus is very real, to them anyway
Well, I suppose here we get into the definition of "real." :P But something seeming real to someone, and something being objectively real and manifesting in reality are two very different things. So far, no one has demonstrated any of the god claims to be true, so there is no reason to believe in any of them any more than leprechauns. All of the god claims cannot be true, as many, are contradictory with others (though many can also be compatible with others.) So all of the god claims cannot be true, but they can all be false, and some of them must be false, and yet many theists, from whatever religion, claim to *know* the god and that it exists, so we know that there can be a placebo effect of sorts, we can convince ourselves that something is true or that we are experiencing something, even when it is not the case. But even if the particular god in question isn't real(be it Zeus or Yahweh), it can still serve as a powerful psychological function. I think this is where people start saying "well, it is real to me", because, in a sense it is, because the comfort or peace or joy they recieve from that concept is very real. However, I feel confident in saying that while the comfort or joy is real, the source which they think it comes from (if they are claiming a god-concept source that contradicts reality) is not. I think it more likely that it is just a psychological issue rather than a supernatural one.
I must say, while I respect your belief, I am a bit confused how one can say they believe that the Bible god as well as other gods exist, because if someone subscribes to the idea of the bible god, then they subscribe to the idea that he is the only god (unless they pick and choose parts of the bible to believe. I have heard it called the big book of multiple choice before:P haha) But, in this, we may be talking about two different Yahwehs. If I said I believed in Ra (the Egyptian sun god, i think) for example, but when I described this god, I said that it was a little girl in a black dress who steals socks, then even though I am talking about Ra, calling it Ra, it is still a very different god concept than the god concept the egyptians had. So when I refer to Yahweh not being real, and contradicting with reality, I am referring to the Yahweh god-concept as presented through a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, which contradicts with what we know about reality. You may have a slightly different god concept called Yahweh, I do not know, but it sounds like it (to me at least:winkc:)
Anyways, I just don't believe in the concept of god in general due to the lack of evidence, though I think it is most likely not true, and I feel confident in saying that certain god concepts are false (the ones that contradict with what we know about reality.)
But, thats where I stand right now, and my view is, of course, subject to change upon incoming evidence:)
Take care.
The first person with any claim to authority that I spoke to at length about the logic of Buddhism was George Spencer Brown. His best known book is Laws of Form, in which he explains how form arises in emptiness. He declares himself to be a buddha. He was a close friend of Wei Wu Wei the advaitan philosopher, who inspired the youthful Ramesh Balsekar, whose book 'The Ultimate Understanding' is a favourite of mine. We spoke at some length and agreed about everything. What Brown does in Laws of Form is to translate Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness into a simple mathematical calculus.
The reason it is possible to be sure that Nagarjuna did not prove that all views are absurd is that it is not possible to do it. This is why I can be so confident that he did not do this.
Nagarjuna uses the dialectic to refute all positive metaphysical positions, or all extreme views. There is, however, one view that the dialectic cannot refute. This can be demonstrated. Take the question of whether the universe begins or does not begin. It is possible to refute both these views in the dialectic, by reducing them to absurdity in the manner of Nagarjuna (and much as Zeno refutes our usual notions of time and motion). The view that this logic cannot refute is one for which the universe cannot be said to begin or not-begin. Nobody can refute this view using dialectic logic, and it is usually called 'illogical' for this reason, rather than absurd.
It is not a matter of interpretation but a matter of logic. It is simply not possible that Nagarjuna refutes all views by his dialectic method. God himself couldn't do it. This is as we would expect, for it would be odd if we could refute the truth.
Regarding the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, it is surely our choice whether or not they are compatible. It is possible to interpret Jesus a saying what the Buddha says and possible to interpet him as saying something utterly different. As the former interpretation is possible then it seems likely to many people that it is the correct interpretation. RichardthePilgrim speaks much sense about this. However, there is nothing that can force us to take this view, since there are many interpretations. In the view of the Christian theologian Keith Ward it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe that the objective God taught by large parts of the church does not exist. That is, it is possible to call oneself a Christian and yet agree with Redsaint about God. We do not have to take this view, but if we want to there is a great deal of support for it and much supporting evidence that it was the view taught by Jesus. Yes, Jesus talks a lot about this God, but Christianty has its own 'turnings of the wheel.'
The main thing is that on the evidence, and in respect of the work of Christian and Buddhists scholars, it is not necessary to take the view that they are incompatible. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be possible to settle this question by analysis. I have one Christian friend who believes that Buddhism is the work of the Devil, and one (many years in a closed Christian community and now a Buddhist who'se taken the vow) who can't see any significant difference.
That'll be my last post here for a long time. Thanks to everyone for the chat.
Don't roll by this Florian. There is something here that may be of use to your research.
I agree, pretty much, with what you said, like, I can't prove that all the Gods people worship exist, but, I do know that it does give people comfort, meaning, and helps them in their search for Enlightenment, and that's all that matters to me.
Personally, I think if one God exists, then others probably exist as well, whether or not, they're created by peoples belief (like a Tibetan tulpa) or have some kind of existence separate from humanity, I don't know.