Mark, Marsha
hmm. I can sometimes be too mean. But it was reasonable of Marsha to ask
for something substantial. I don't yet have the thing I promised. I
guess I don't sufficiently distance other people from me, and need to
attack them in order to not feel hurt myself, when I perceive them as
disappointing. Maybe I need to think about my behavior more.

Anyway, I was annoyed by already taking into account that it's not
Marsha's fault the paper was bad. And her defence of the paper... oh
wait, she's defenceless, right? I guess I won't start this conversation
then. I didn't mean to personally attack. I just tried to find some
reason why she reacted in a way I could not understand. What I said may
have been somehow difficult to stomach, but I did not say it in a way
that was tailored to hurt. I perceived the tone as neutral.

-Tuukka



6.2.2012 19:16, 118 kirjoitti:
> 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@tuuk...>  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@tuuk...>
>>> 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
>>
> 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