[MD] The MOQ and Death

[Andre Broersen]

Ham to Andre:
Also, in an analysis at Orientalia.org,, Plamen Gradinarov mentions at
least one "absolutist" interpretation of Nagarjuna's teachings.. .

Andre,
I base my views on a combination of experience and a reading of
Garfield's interpretation. Garfield has identified 'absolutist' and
'nihilist' readings of Nagarjuna and addresses these in his book. The
Middle Way is what it claims to be and Nagarjuna is no fool. Any
contrary interpretation is a mis-reading/ understanding of the text.
Garfield, to the best of his ability points these out. And Garfield is
no fool either.
In this sense I regard Garfield as suggesting the highest quality
explanation of the Middle Way to date.

Ham:
Apart from the fact that, as "created beings", we are all dependent on an
uncreated Source, please tell me how our response to Quality or Value
changes our conception of birth and death.

Andre:
When do/did you 'start' being born and when do/did you 'start' dying?

Ham:
All we can know is what we as subjects experience of an objective
reality. Human thought and reasoning are necessarily limited to this
experience. Intellect is indeed our capacity to reason.  However,
"attacking subject-object" to make it disappear is hardly the most
propitious application of intellect I can think of.

Andre
If this is your essentialist position then stay with it Ham. This is
an MoQ discuss. Who or where does the MoQ postulate the necessary
disappearance act of subject-object?

Andre