SteRo wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:51 am
I browsed this earlier today and but am now browsing again and make the following notes:
1. Kalupahana says "natthita" refers to the "Materialists"; reacting against the traditional metaphysics. However, to my knowledge, the Buddha never refers to the "Materialists" . The closest we get i think is in DN 2.
2. Kalupahana says dependent origination explains the nature of human personality & the world of experience.
3. Kalupahana incorrectly says the term "sabhava" means "self-nature" and also "substance".
4. Murti suggests Nagarjuna rejected the Buddha's theory of elements with his theory of emptiness.
5. Karika was Nagarjuna explanation of SN 12.15
6. Nagarjuna was a fearless critic of metaphysical views.
7. Kalupahana continues to identify natthita (asat; nastitva) with the Materialists but does not mention this term is found in the opening sentences of the Rig Veda.
8. Kalupahana identifies atthita with a personal universal self (Atman), which the Indian philosophers assert was created by God, (however this topic actually doesn't seem to occur much in the suttas).
9. Kalupahana says the Materialists advocated the annihilation of the human personality after death (and also denied moral responsibility for actions). They propounded a theory of the indestructibility of matter [footnotes his own book as the source of this info.
10. Kalupahana calls "nama-rupa" the "psychophysical personality". It appears Kalupahana thinks D.O. is about reincarnation.
11. Kalupahana appears to say SN 12.15 is related to DN 1, which list the 62 wrong views of atthita and natthita. [Note: I disagree with this because seeing merely arising will negate both views of atthita and natthita].
12. Kalupahana claims "passati" is seeing the arising & ceasing of various phenomena in the world.
13. Kalupahana says SN 12.15 says: "This is my [permanent] self.
14. Kalupahana says right view would not take a stand of This is my [permanent] self but would perceive phenomena in the world arising & ceasing. [This appears problematic because D.O. is much more than mere phenomena arising & ceasing].
15. The ordinary person continues to worry about a permanent eternal substances and god.
16. Sassata (eternalism) is false because it doesn't take into account cessation (nirodha).
18. "Everything does not exist" is also false because it is more than a simple denial of a permanent and eternal substance in man (atman) or in the universe (brahman) but it implies complete discontinuity in phenomena or their annihilation (uccheda); which is wrong in that some aspects of experience like arising (samudaya) cannot be accounted for by such a view.
I will end here on page 13. Point 18 above is not well argued and vague; and uses concepts (such as uccheda poorly).
18. I browsed Nagarjuna's twelvefold formula (dvadasanga) earlier today and it seems too brief & vague but will examine it more thoroughly later. But Kalupahana seems to say it is about reincarnation. I also gained that impression when reading the dvadasanga although it was not conclusive.
19. Kalupahana appears to be clear in his view that D.O is about reincarnation or physical births & deaths. On page 14, Kalupahana engages in lots of tepid papanca that is unconvincing academically.
20. I will resume later from page 27.