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

**petrarkaponye** · 07-06-2011, 10:58 PM

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".

For the context of Mahayana philosophy it was Ok. But the struggle of Nagarjuna is useless for the context of the Pali Suttas. They do not need the Nagarjuna mental yoga. What the Pali Suttas ask for is not for entanglements but quite contemplation about what is asked to be done.

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. That density shows the sort of philosophical entanglement that became the Mahayanist movement. By themselves those verses are really enjoyable. They are a foundation, also, for Zen philosophical approach but again, useless in the context of the teachings of the historical Buddha. They are not needed there at all. The Buddha do not need the aid of Nagarjuna. Maybe otherwise

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. I can tell just about the tradition I chose, Soto Zen and I could be messing around the huge Mahayana movement but I really do not feel it is important to what is asked at the Pali teachings. I really enjoy othre fields of knowledge for mental amusement. I have never felt a real curiosity about religions. Also, to undestand why or how Mahayana or any other religious tradition developed will never bring me deliverance of mind. But this is about personal opinion. What is important, IMO, is what the historical Buddha taught. Traditions are of secondary importance and should be taken with a healthy distance and critical scope. Some traditions do not care about the teachings of the historical Buddha, not to say some teachers that kidnap their students into their own understandings. That is a real problem that any religion has. "Traditions", all, have become religions and/or philosophical religions brought into thought enclaves.

I still haven't come into a Sutta where the historical Buddha is asking with urgency to be attached to a tradition but just to be surrounded by people of integrity, in the case of householders and lay practitioners.

07-06-2011, 10:58 PM	#31
petrarkaponye Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	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". For the context of Mahayana philosophy it was Ok. But the struggle of Nagarjuna is useless for the context of the Pali Suttas. They do not need the Nagarjuna mental yoga. What the Pali Suttas ask for is not for entanglements but quite contemplation about what is asked to be done. 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. That density shows the sort of philosophical entanglement that became the Mahayanist movement. By themselves those verses are really enjoyable. They are a foundation, also, for Zen philosophical approach but again, useless in the context of the teachings of the historical Buddha. They are not needed there at all. The Buddha do not need the aid of Nagarjuna. Maybe otherwise 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. I can tell just about the tradition I chose, Soto Zen and I could be messing around the huge Mahayana movement but I really do not feel it is important to what is asked at the Pali teachings. I really enjoy othre fields of knowledge for mental amusement. I have never felt a real curiosity about religions. Also, to undestand why or how Mahayana or any other religious tradition developed will never bring me deliverance of mind. But this is about personal opinion. What is important, IMO, is what the historical Buddha taught. Traditions are of secondary importance and should be taken with a healthy distance and critical scope. Some traditions do not care about the teachings of the historical Buddha, not to say some teachers that kidnap their students into their own understandings. That is a real problem that any religion has. "Traditions", all, have become religions and/or philosophical religions brought into thought enclaves. I still haven't come into a Sutta where the historical Buddha is asking with urgency to be attached to a tradition but just to be surrounded by people of integrity, in the case of householders and lay practitioners.
	Quote