Marsha,
I still want to add detail. Showing the paper to me was important, and
that, in any case, is more important than whether I liked it.

-Tuukka



16.2.2012 4:09, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
> Marsha,
> and you were right. I did like to read the paper. Even though I called
> it rubbish! I was simply happy that a professor cares about these
> things. That was very unusual 50 years ago.
>
> -Tuukka
>
>
>
> 15.2.2012 23:15, MarshaV kirjoitti:
>> Tuukka,
>>
>> The Priest quote is long ago and far away.  I thought you'd like to
>> read the paper because he was offering a mathematical
>> characterization of Emptiness.  His demonstration was always over my
>> mathematical head.  I feel no responsibility for you agreeing or
>> disagreeing, liking or disliking the paper.
>>
>>
>> Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Tuukka
>> Virtaperko<mail@tuuk...>  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>> 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