[MD] Priest's paper terrible rubbish, unfortunately

[David Harding]

Hi Marsha,

"If your point is to prove me wrong, than let me assure you, as one who understands truth to be relative, I am never absolutely right."

How is truth relative? Relative to what?

-David


On Monday, 6 February 2012 at 5:11 PM, MarshaV wrote:

>  
> Tuukka,
>  
> There always will be some scholar that you can accuse me of being in disagreement with. And there are many subtle differences between schools and branches of Buddhism and interpretations of Nagarjuna's many works. Do you think all scholars will agree on what RMP has said? Do you think all Jamesian scholars agree on what William James meant? No! Voices-in-unison is not the way of scholarship? I bet you will find scholars who disagree on what Aristotle meant, especially since his original writing has never been discovered. - I read, I consider, I test and investigate ( I am conventionally speaking of course), I meditate, and I draw my own conclusions based on my experience, and I leave room for change.
>  
> So what is your point? And why should your opinion/interpretation of Priest matter to me? What kind of academic credentials can you produce to validate your opinion that Priest is right, wrong, all of the above or none of the above??? And, btw, where's your rubbish? Do you have anything a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e to present? If your point is to prove me wrong, than let me assure you, as one who understands truth to be relative, I am never absolutely right.  
>  
>  
> Marsha
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Feb 5, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net (mailto:mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net)> wrote:
>  
> > In addition, Priest ends up claiming, that according to orthodox Mahayana Buddhism, everything is//samvṛtisatya, and there is no paramārthasatya. So he denies the Two Truths Doctrine without even mentioning it, as if he were unaware of such a doctrine.
> >  
> > -Tuukka
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > 6.2.2012 2:22, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
> > > Marsha, all,
> > >  
> > > remember the paper by Graham Priest, called Structure of Emptiness? Cite:
> > >  
> > > "S'u-nyata-, in the sense we are going to understand it here, is simply the doctrine that /every/ entity that exists has relational existence. There is no entity that has intrinsic existence.
> > >  
> > > I cannot think of any Western philosopher who has endorsed exactly this view, but it is orthodox in Maha-ya-na Buddhism. A canonical defence of the view was provided by Na-ga-rjuna, the second century Indian philosopher, particularily in his text /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-/. In this text, Na-ga-rjuna goes through all the things that one might think to have self-existence, and argues that they do not. Many of the arguments employed concern the kind of thing in question, such as matter, time consciousness. But some of the arguments are quite general. Here is one such argument from Chapter 5 (or at least, my interpretation of it --- interpreting Na-ga-rjuna is always a sensitive issue).
> > >  
> > > Take an object that one might suppose to have self-existence. Since the argument is quite general, /anything/ will do, but for the sake of illustration, suppose we take Aristotle. Aristotle had various properties: having certain parents, being born in Stagrya, being called '???????????', and so on. Now, to be Aristotle is to be the bearer of those properties. Any entity which bore (related to) those properties would /be/ Aristotle. Aristotle, then, does not have self-existence: to be (identical to) Aristotle is to be related to those properties in that way."
> > >  
> > > That's just terrible rubbish. He hasn't apparently read /Mu-lamadhyamakaka-rika-. /Na-ga-rjuna says:
> > > /
> > > /"If we cannot find an entity with an essence, that does not prove the non-existence of such entities. Some say that an entity that changes is a nonentity."
> > >  
> > > And:
> > >  
> > > "To say "it is" is to be attached to essentialism. To say "it is not" is to lapse into nihilism. Therefore, judgments of "it is" or "it is not" are not made by the wise."
> > >  
> > > The author terribly misrepresents Na-ga-rjuna. I don't know why. This is so obvious, it's not about Buddhism anymore. It's just about reading the damn work you're writing about. Any academic should have done better.
> > >  
> > > But the article was interesting, thank you.
> > >  
> > > -Tuukka
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>  
>