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