DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Philosophy, Informal Fallacies & Buddhism

**Lictimind** · 07-06-2011, 08:22 PM

Absolutly. I have never felt or seen any sort of philosophical struggle at any of the teachings of the historical Buddha. Where I have seen such a thing is in the Mahayana tradition that become the proper place for doing such struggles with the teachings. Just give a read to the Mulamadhyamakakarika verses of Nagarjuna.

I guess I see Nagarjuna more as someone who endeavoured to use philosophy in order to dismantle philosophy. A figure comparable to Wittgenstein, perhaps.

By his time Buddhism had already become enmeshed in scholasticism, and there were well-established procedures for logical argumentation which had to be observed -- so he couldn't just come in and make declarations "by fiat".

So yes, Mulamadhyamakakarika verses are dense reading (and not to my taste either, btw), but because he was writing within a different context and for a different audience, it may be easy to misconstrue his intent.

The teachings of the historical Buddha are not the case of an intellectual satisfaction but a deep concern about realizing the fact of the ultimate meaning of things. Sure. What I might add, though, is that if one has decided to practice within a certain tradition, it can be helpful to understand how the tradition developed. And in the case of Mahayana, that can mean engagement with Yogacara or Madhyamaka (not to mention figures such as Dogen or Linji or Shinran or Nichiren, depending on what you are practicing).

In other words, it can be about learning n a practical sense rather than intellectual self-gratification for its own sake. Especially in the context of discussion boards, where we have different traditions arguing with each other, knowledge can help address misunderstandings.

07-06-2011, 08:22 PM	#29
Lictimind Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 682 Senior Member	Absolutly. I have never felt or seen any sort of philosophical struggle at any of the teachings of the historical Buddha. Where I have seen such a thing is in the Mahayana tradition that become the proper place for doing such struggles with the teachings. Just give a read to the Mulamadhyamakakarika verses of Nagarjuna. I guess I see Nagarjuna more as someone who endeavoured to use philosophy in order to dismantle philosophy. A figure comparable to Wittgenstein, perhaps. By his time Buddhism had already become enmeshed in scholasticism, and there were well-established procedures for logical argumentation which had to be observed -- so he couldn't just come in and make declarations "by fiat". So yes, Mulamadhyamakakarika verses are dense reading (and not to my taste either, btw), but because he was writing within a different context and for a different audience, it may be easy to misconstrue his intent. The teachings of the historical Buddha are not the case of an intellectual satisfaction but a deep concern about realizing the fact of the ultimate meaning of things. Sure. What I might add, though, is that if one has decided to practice within a certain tradition, it can be helpful to understand how the tradition developed. And in the case of Mahayana, that can mean engagement with Yogacara or Madhyamaka (not to mention figures such as Dogen or Linji or Shinran or Nichiren, depending on what you are practicing). In other words, it can be about learning n a practical sense rather than intellectual self-gratification for its own sake. Especially in the context of discussion boards, where we have different traditions arguing with each other, knowledge can help address misunderstandings.
	Quote