[MD] Nagarjuna's MKK

[MarshaV]

Hi Ian,

I can imagine it could be a tough read for someone with a life.  I 
read it cover to cover (some rereads), but then I don't have anything 
else going on but to think about these things.  I was never one who 
had much faith in logical argument, but it took my breath away.  It 
left, and still leaves me speechless.  I'm happy that you're reading it.

I bet Paul's blog is interesting.  How do I get to it?

Marsha


At 05:21 AM 2/10/2006, Ian wrote:
>Marsha, (and Paul)
>
>So far Marsha, I've managed three short sessions - rather tired
>bedtime reads - so progress is slow.
>
>I've read all the introductory / background material. - OK
>I've read through the bare translations (mostly) and it's full of all
>the expected "allusions" - though like the Tao Te Ching, it's not
>really intended to be read from beginning to end is it ?
>
>In reading the analytical chapters - I found the "Conditions" chapter
>illuminating and reasuringly intelligible on the issues of no absolute
>ontology, and "explicability" (my "quality of expalantion" and "holes
>in any metaphysics" agendas) neatly summarised in this Garfield quote
>that Paul used on his blog ...
>
>"To assert the emptiness of causation is to accept the utility of our
>causal discourse and explanatory practice, but to resist the
>temptation to see these as grounded in reference to causal powers or
>as demanding such grounding. Dependent origination simply is the
>explicability and coherence of the universe. Its emptiness is the fact
>that there is no more to it than that."
>
>After some discussion with Paul on his blog, about the "weirdness" of
>causation implicit in that view. I embarked on the "Motion" chapter
>but despite a couple of re-reads - I haven't got it yet. I'll need to
>find time to move on and come back.
>
>I'm hooked though and believe it has important things to say.
>Ian
>