[MD] Priest's paper terrible rubbish, unfortunately

[118]

Gee Tuukka,
You are so mean to Marsha :-).  Can't you see she is defenseless?
Keep in mind that whatever you post will be seen as a personal attack
to some.  Having said that, it can be interesting to stir up the
hornet's nest.
Cheers,
Mark

On 2/6/12, Tuukka Virtaperko <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
> Marsha,
> It is as if you were replying to a different message than I sent. Your
> response is hysteric, even though this is not quite personal. I get the
> feeling that you crave attention from me by seeming vulnerable and
> getting upset when nobody even challenged you.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 6.2.2012 8:11, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>> 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>
>> 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
>
> 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
>