-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" <willy...@...> wrote: > > > The depth of the Indian philosophical systems > > > make western philosophy seem like an ant hill! > > > > Curtis: > > David Hume's "Dialogues on Natural Religion" are > > the Vedanta of Vedanta for me. By exposing the > > intrinsic contradiction... > > > We are on the same path, Curtis!
I do believe this. The path to the grave spares no one. > > The 'intrinsic contradiction' espoused by David Hume > has a direct counterpart in the Buddhist logician > Nagarjuna, the founder of the 'Madhyamaka' school in > India. Hume and Nagarjuna's logic is very impressive. > > Nagarjuna taught the idea of relativity; an object > exists only in relation to other objects. Objects *do > not* have an intrinsic nature; an object is possible > only in relation to other objects. > > Which, in a nut shell, means that existence is devoid > of of 'own being' - there is a dependent origination. This is more of an ontological question which is a more common focus of spiritual perspectives. My own development in this area is admittedly limited since I have less interest in it than epistemology. I would make as poor a physicist as I would priest since these questions just don't grip me the way the subject of our confidence in our cognitive processes does. But I am impressed with your ability to link the concepts between such seemingly different sources, so high five for that. > > The main tenet of this school can be summed up as: > 'any proposition, when taken to it's extreme, will > be found to be self-contradictory'. > > Ken Wilber agrees with this - he ascribes to > Nagarjuna's hypothesis concerning the dialectic, > outlined in a four-fold negation: > > "Neither from itself nor from another, > Nor from both, > Nor without a cause, > Does anything whatever, anywhere arise..." > > - Madhyamaka-karika, 1:1. So how are you interpreting this? I subscribe to the primacy of existence itself. Creation just is and doesn't need to be explained as having been created by anything. It seems to me that this is a poetic way of saying we don't know much about how any of this got here. If I understand it, I really like it. > > According to Ken Wilber, this can be termed a > 'tetralemma', which follows this logical > propositions: > > "X (affirmation) > non-X (negation) > X and non-X (both) > neither X nor non-X (neither)." I'm not sure, outside the lofty area of the origin of creation, where this is useful. It sort of ends up in an uninteresting place. (for me) It sounds like the kind of thing that would be vastly improved with a bong hit. > > > in the very concept of God as being omnipotent > > omniscient and good when compared with the > > state of suffering in the world, he freed > > mankind from thousands of years of superstitious > > beliefs. We have seen explosive growth in > > every area of human knowledge that embraced > > this freedom. > > > > There is only one area of human knowledge left > > that has refused to have an honest discourse > > on whether the ideas make any sense. It is no > > surprise that this area, shielded from rational > > thought and objections to absurd assertions, > > produces people strapping bombs on their bodies > > to enter an imaginary afterlife. > > > Agreed! Cool. I think much of Hindu thought has bypassed Hume's contradiction by adding other unproven assertions about how everything really works out in the end. And if you are tripping over little hungry children, who can't be taken care of with the resources of your country on the way to work every day, I hardly blame them for creating something that buffers that harshness. We all have some version of this with or without religion. >
