Beautiful Breath wrote:But the mādhyamikas have 'proved' their case....haven't they? I see nothing anywhere that contradicts or refutes them. If there is, let me know - would help with my Theravadain/Mādhyamikas Nerosis!
I think Madhyamaka can be useful, and doesn't contradict anything in the Pāli Nikāyas. And as Tilt suggests, there's no need to posit dhammas as "ultimate realities" in the first place.
As for whether or not mādhyamikas have made their case: they have if you accept mādhyamika reasoning. Of course, not everyone does accept mādhyamika reasoning, and that's fine too.
I have yet to find a logical refutation of the mādhyamika reasoning myself...seems pretty water tight to me....(imho - of course).
David J. Kalupahana's Mulamadhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way might be of interest in that it is a translation of and a look at the Mulamadhyamakakarika from a stand point of the Pali Canon andthe Agamas. While Western Tibetan Buddhists tend to hate it because it does not conform to the usual Tibetan understanding of things (but we need to keep in mind that the Tibetans did not get everything correct, such as the Yogachara). While Kaluphahana's translation and discussion may not be perfect, it is a worthwhile read. Also, Kalupahana uses a very old Chinese commentary that approaches things a bit differently from the usual Tibetan manner.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Beautiful Breath wrote:I have yet to find a logical refutation of the mādhyamika reasoning myself...seems pretty water tight to me....(imho - of course).
The present essay demonstrates the many sophistries involved in Nagarjuna’s arguments. He uses double standards, applying or ignoring the laws of thought and other norms as convenient to his goals; he manipulates his readers, by giving seemingly logical form (like the dilemma) to his discourse, while in fact engaged in non-sequiturs or appealing to doubtful premises; he plays with words, relying on unclear terminology, misleading equivocations and unfair fixations of meaning; and he ‘steals concepts’, using them to deny the very percepts on which they are based.link
Beautiful Breath wrote:I have yet to find a logical refutation of the mādhyamika reasoning myself...seems pretty water tight to me....(imho - of course).
The present essay demonstrates the many sophistries involved in Nagarjuna’s arguments. He uses double standards, applying or ignoring the laws of thought and other norms as convenient to his goals; he manipulates his readers, by giving seemingly logical form (like the dilemma) to his discourse, while in fact engaged in non-sequiturs or appealing to doubtful premises; he plays with words, relying on unclear terminology, misleading equivocations and unfair fixations of meaning; and he ‘steals concepts’, using them to deny the very percepts on which they are based.link
Probably not.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Have you read his book? I am just saying that some people don't consider Nagarjunas arguments to be as compelling as some claim they are.
If one is going to critcize Nagarjuna, it would help to really look at what Nagarjuna is saying and in the context of what he saying. This book is self-published drivel by someone who knows little of Buddhism and even less of Nagarjuna.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
tiltbillings wrote:If one is going to critcize Nagarjuna, it would help to really look at what Nagarjuna is saying and in the context of what he saying.
He is criticizing logic that Nagarjuna is using.
tiltbillings wrote:This book is self-published drivel by someone who knows little of Buddhism and even less of Nagarjuna.
It examines the logic that Nagarjuna is using. Prove it that it is "drivel".
No. I am not going waste my time with another tedious and fruitless debate with you over something you know little about. If you want a discussion of Nagarjuna, go to Dharma Wheel. And you might actually read a carefully done analysis of and commentary on Nagarjuna by someone who knows of what they are speaking. This stupid book is not it, but I see why it would appeal to you.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
tiltbillings wrote:No. I am not going waste my time with another tedious and fruitless debate with you over something you know little about. If you want a discussion of Nagarjuna, go to Dharma Wheel. And you might actually read a carefully done analysis of and commentary on Nagarjuna by someone who knows of what they are speaking. This stupid book is not it, but I see why it would appeal to you.
Can you actually refute his arguments (or show link that refutes them) or are you just using "that book is stupid" as your argument?
tiltbillings wrote:No. I am not going waste my time with another tedious and fruitless debate with you over something you know little about. If you want a discussion of Nagarjuna, go to Dharma Wheel. And you might actually read a carefully done analysis of and commentary on Nagarjuna by someone who knows of what they are speaking. This stupid book is not it, but I see why it would appeal to you.
Can you actually refute his arguments (or show link that refutes them) or are you just using "that book is stupid" as your argument?
And you are well enough versed in Nagarjuna to say that this book does an accurate and objective job of presenting Nagarjuna? This is a poorly resourced and researched book by someone who knows next to nothing of Buddhism, as the footnotes make so abundantly clear. Present this book on Dharma Wheel. Start an argument there. That would be interesting.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Alex123 wrote:
Can you actually refute his arguments (or show link that refutes them) or are you just using "that book is stupid" as your argument?
And you are well enough versed in Nagarjuna to say that this book does an accurate and objective job of presenting Nagarjuna? This is a poorly resourced and researched book by someone who knows next to nothing of Buddhism, as the footnotes make so abundantly clear. Present this book on Dharma Wheel. Start an argument there. That would be interesting.
It presents Nagarjuna's arguments. It doesn't critique Buddhism. It just analyzes the logic that Nagarjuna is using. You are free to rebuke those arguments point by point, or cut-and-paste rebuttals here.
Alex123 wrote:
Can you actually refute his arguments (or show link that refutes them) or are you just using "that book is stupid" as your argument?
And you are well enough versed in Nagarjuna to say that this book does an accurate and objective job of presenting Nagarjuna? This is a poorly resourced and researched book by someone who knows next to nothing of Buddhism, as the footnotes make so abundantly clear. Present this book on Dharma Wheel. Start an argument there. That would be interesting.
It presents Nagarjuna's arguments. It doesn't critique Buddhism. It just analyzes the logic that Nagarjuna is using. You are free to rebuke those arguments point by point, or cut-and-paste rebuttals here.
I am not wasting my time on a useless book. And this is the end of this conversation.
>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Alex123 wrote:
It presents Nagarjuna's arguments. It doesn't critique Buddhism. It just analyzes the logic that Nagarjuna is using. You are free to rebuke those arguments point by point, or cut-and-paste rebuttals here.
I'm sorry but I'm getting rather lost trying to follow this thread. What has this got to do with Sujin Boriharnwanaket?
Alex123 wrote:
It presents Nagarjuna's arguments. It doesn't critique Buddhism. It just analyzes the logic that Nagarjuna is using. You are free to rebuke those arguments point by point, or cut-and-paste rebuttals here.
I'm sorry but I'm getting rather lost trying to follow this thread. What has this got to do with Sujin Boriharnwanaket?