[VitaliyMurnov]

Friends:
If you think Buddha was a phenomenologist, make explicit the similarities between him and Husserl (or your favorite phenomenologist).

If you think Buddha was an existentialist, which one (or combination of) of these is he most like? Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Sartre, or Camus?

Same routine with empiricism: Locke, Berkeley or Hume?

good-will@Uall
bucky

[imnaone]

Greetings Bucky,

In that case I'd just be comparing the Buddha with himself.

Have a nice day.

Metta,
Retro.

[Sdzqerty]

Friends:
If you think Buddha was a phenomenologist...

If you think Buddha was an existentialist...

Same routine with empiricism...

good-will@Uall
bucky

[Reftsheette]

Imo, the Buddha was a spiritual doctor, curing the illnesses of the human heart-psyche

[nerrttrw]

If you think Buddha was a phenomenologist, make explicit the similarities between him and Husserl (or your favorite phenomenologist).

If you think Buddha was an existentialist, which one (or combination of) of these is he most like? Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Sartre, or Camus?

Same routine with empiricism: Locke, Berkeley or Hume?

[pharmablogger]

The question assumes that Western philosophical categories are primary. This is centric thinking; a round peg for a square hole. The Buddha taught from within in a wholly different milieu. These categories are at best approximations, and not very useful apart from highlighting the utter lack of an ontology.

[Ephejvll]

[MineOffedOvex]

Greetings daverupa:

The question assumes that Western philosophical categories are primary

That's your inferential assumption, not the questions (or mine). That's why each sentence begins with "If...."

This is centric thinking...."

Centric to what?

The Buddha taught from within in a wholly different milieu.

& there's absolutely no overlap...or enough overlap to matter, ever?

These categories are at best approximations, and not very useful apart from highlighting the utter lack of an ontology.

Lack of ontology where? Among the philosophers I listed?

Metta,
BuckyG

[Alex]

Retro, Element, A-D, plwk. Thanks for your genuine & cute responses.
stuka: Building a straw man requires argument construction. No argument construction has occured by me in this thread. I believe you took me too literally.
Metta
bucky

[viagbloggerz]

Bucky: You are demanding that we take the straw-man positions you offer and argue them. Get The Quickly to the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta:


"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death one neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?"

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...

"...'the cosmos is finite'...

Bucky. You are are demanding that we take the straw-man positions you offer and argue them. Get Thee Quickly to the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta:

"...'the cosmos is infinite'...

"...'the soul & the body are the same'...

"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...

"...'after death one exists'...

"...'after death one does not exist'...

"...'after death one both exists & does not exist'...

"...'after death one neither exists nor does not exist'... does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging, released."

"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."
.......

[rfceicizgm]

Greetings daverupa:
That's your inferential assumption, not the questions (or mine). That's why each sentence begins with "If...."

"If..."...merely stands up the Straw Man.

Centric to what? Give a kid a hammer, and everything is a nail. Same is true for folks who fancy themselves philosophers.

& there's absolutely no overlap...or enough overlap to matter, ever? Get The Quickly to the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta.


Lack of ontology where? Among the philosophers I listed? In the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha pointed out that there are problems with the way we view the world and act in the world which tend to cause ourselves and others misery. And offered some useful suggestions to view the world differently and act differently in order to alleviate these problems. This does not require any sort of ontology, metaphysics, cosmologies, or any other sort of superstitions.

[blogwado]

Greetings stuka:

stand[ing] up the Straw Man

requires argument construction. No argument construction occurred on my part. You do know what an argument is, right?

a kid

I'm not the one behaving childishly.

folks who fancy themselves philosophers.

How would you know one way or the other?

the Buddha's teachings...[don't] not require any sort of ontology, metaphysics, cosmologies, or any other sort of superstitions.

Requirements? That's your projection. I was asking about connections, not requirements.
Metta,
bucky

[Aztegjpl]

Greetings stuka:
requires argument construction. No argument construction occurred on my part.

You solicited for arguments defending the straw men you offered. There is more than one way to erect a straw man. Your OP is also a loaded question, but the picture for that isn't near as funny as that of the straw man.

I don't see any takers on your offers to argue "The Buddha was a phenomenologist, an existentialist, an empiricist, the elephant is a tree, a snake, a wall", BTW. Clearly no one is taking the bait.

You do know what an argument is, right? Of course, thanks.
I'm not the one behaving childishly. The adage has nothing to do with "childish behavior" and everything to do with filtering. Paticcasamuppada, you know....


How would you know one way or the other? Gushing on and on about ones western philosophical heroes might be a first clue...

Requirements? That's your projection. I was asking about connections, not requirements. You didn't say anything about "connections". Your straw men take the assumptions "Buddha was an....x-ist, y-ist, z-ist", each position being an ontological speculative view.

Metta,
bucky It seems rather disingenuous to put the pointed remarks "You do know what an argument is, right?" and "I'm not the one behaving childishly" and the salutation, "Metta,..." in the same post. Clearly in such a missive, any thoughts of metta have been discarded like so much useless refuse.

[AndyScouchek]

Greetings stuka:

You solicited for arguments... no one is taking the bait.

I solicited for opinions, not argument construction.

The adage has nothing to do with "childish behavior"....
Gushing on and on about ones western philosophical heroes might be a first clue......

Another projection/inference. How do you get "gushing" out of a simple list & few easy questions?

You...take the assumptions "Buddha was an....x-ist, y-ist, z-ist"

Yet another projection/inference. Can you demonstrate this from my OP?

It seems rather disingenuous to put the pointed remarks "You do know what an argument is, right?" and "I'm not the one behaving childishly" and the salutation, "Metta,..." in the same post. Clearly in such a missive, any thoughts of metta have been discarded like so much useless refuse.

What's clear is our different understandings of metta.
Metta
bucky

[rbVmVlQ2]

Greetings Detective Stuka:

Your OP is...a loaded question

No. But you're getting warmer.
Metta
bucky

[KimLinbert]

i regret not having included "ontologists"

[Nubtoubrem]

In that case I'd just be comparing the Buddha with himself.

Greetings Retro:
Y wouldn't u compare him to the philosophers?
Metta
bucky

[rozalinasi]

Imo, the Buddha was a spiritual doctor, curing the illnesses of the human heart-psyche

Greetings Element. I'm pretty sure you mean this, & if you do, I seriously like this opinion a lot. You clearly understood the questions.
Metta
bucky

[steevyjeors]

Greetings stuka:
I solicited for opinions, not argument construction.

And opinions are explained/defended with arguments.

Another projection/inference. How do you get "gushing" out of a simple list & few easy questions? That was a reference to the low 90's of the "emptiness" thread.




Originally Posted by stuka
You...take the assumptions "Buddha was an....x-ist, y-ist, z-ist"
Yet another projection/inference. Can you demonstrate this from my OP?
I will not defend what I have not said. You misrepresent what I have written through deliberately dishonest editing that substantially alters its meaning.


What's clear is our different understandings of metta.
Metta
bucky Obviously.

[pipittujbk]

Greetings Detective Stuka:
No. But you're getting warmer.
Metta
bucky

However you wish to frame the fallacy in your own mind, it is still a fallacy and no one is buying it.