[MD] Buddhist dialectic

[david buchanan]

Ron posted a quote on Buddhist philosophers: 
> "Buddhism has developed sophisticated, and sometimes highly institutionalized 
> traditions of dialectics during its long history. Nalanda University, and later the 
> Gelugpa Buddhism of Tibet, are examples. The historical development and clarification 
> of Buddhist doctrine and polemics, through dialectics and formal debate, is well
>  documented. Buddhist doctrine was rigorously critiqued (though not ultimately 
> refuted) in the 2nd century by Nagarjuna, whose uncompromisingly logical approach 
> to the realisation of truth, became the basis for the development of a vital stream of
>  Buddhist thought. This dialectical approach of Buddhism, to the elucidation and 
> articulation of an account of the Cosmos as the truth it really is, became known as 
> the Perfection of Wisdom and was later developed by other notable thinkers, such as
>  Dignaga and Dharmakirti (between 500 and 700). The dialectical method of truth-
> seeking is evident throughout the traditions of Madhyamaka, Yogacara, and Tantric 
> Buddhism. Trisong Detsen, and later Je Tsongkhapa, championed the value of dialectic 
> and of formalised training in debate in Tibet."



dmb says:
What a bunch of degenerates! That Nagarjuna dude was such a damned SOMer!

Just kidding.

As the present Dali Lama said:
"A general stance of Buddhism is that it is inappropriate to hold a view that is logically inconsistent. This is taboo. But even more taboo than holding a view that is logically inconsistent is holding a view that goes against direct experience."



Think about that. He's saying that logical inconsistency is "taboo". It's not just an error. It's not just incorrect. It's "taboo". This is a word we reserve for the most horrifying kinds of moral transgression. The examples listed in Wikipedia include incest, patricide, infanticide, cannibalism, necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality. And he uses the word twice; being illogical is"taboo" and it's "even more taboo" to defy empirical evidence. 

These intellectual standards are NOT separate from values and morals. They ARE morals. They ARE values. 


And what does that tell about anti-intellectualism? Does anyone else recoil in horror?