Nāgārjuna and Indian Madhyamaka
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июн 2018
- Sources:
plato.stanford.edu/entries/na...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ma...
• Episode 8, Jay Garfiel...
In this video, I take the listener through the philosophy of Nāgārjuna via a lecture based largely on the articles of Jan Christoph Westerhoff, Richard Hayes, and Jay L. Garfield.
Got back here after a while.
Dharma is in one sense analytical, but in another very deep, beautiful and poetic. The most beautiful and profound thought humanity has ever created. May everyone be peaceful and free of suffering.
Well done lecture. Thank you for CITING YOUR SOURCES I say in a finger wagging way at the world who is totally accustomed to just "owning' anything they can click on.
Beautifully explained! Not a small thing to do with Madhyamaka work.
I've truly enjoyed the lecture. Thanks a lot! ❤
In my turn, I would like to recommend my favourite books on Nagarjuna's philosophy:
Mark Siderits "Buddhism as philosophy",
K.Venkata Ramanan "Nagarjuna's philosophy"
Very systematic and interesting. Great job.
Thank you for the analysis, it was very enlightening.
Fascinating....
Video starts at 3:59
Fantastic, well done
Excellent, clear, systematic presentation! Thanks very much.
Awesome job 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you. Very well explained.
Nice work!
Thank you so much Such great explane
Thank you thank you for This!
So it is reached through quantum physics too! As above so below, as they say...
Is physical dependence contingent on a rejection of atomism?
You spelt "Anicca" and "Anatta" using Pali but Dependent Origination as "Pratityasamutpada" which is in Sanskrit; It should be spelt as "Paṭiccasamuppāda" or alternatively, Impermanence as "Anitya" and Non-Self as "Anatman" with Dependent Origination as "Pratityasamutpada".
This is true, thanks for pointing that out. I have read a lot more of these texts at this point and can pick out Pali vs. Sanskrit more easily now... most of the time :)
Jade Vine, can you tell us who you are? This is very well done.
Did Hume read his works?
I don't think so. The first translations of any Buddhist works into European languages was in the mid 1800s. Nagarjuna's Mulamadyhamakakarika (on which this is based) wasn't translated into English until 1967 by Frederick Streng, as far as I know.
Hume had some fundamental insights that coincide with Buddhist thought, like his bundle-theory of identity. It wasn't the only case, Stoicism has deep parallels with Buddhist thought, & Schopenhauer also chimed with in an era late enough to actually directly access a few Buddhist texts (but he had already arrived at basically the same views he found). Not until Heidegger do you get direct influence, where his concept of 'throwness' is now known to have been impacted by Buddhist work The Book Of Tea.
@@capoeirastronaut Pyrrhonism has a deeper parallel to Madhyamaka imo
Not so much contadictions , more like paradoxes .
So nothing's happening. Lol
Just to clarify Abhidharma or Abhidhamma is not or was not a Buddhist tradition. Mahayana is a tradition, Vajrayana is a tradition or Theravada is a tradition. Abhidhamma provides more in depth explanation to the Buddhist suttas. Suttas like Angutar Nikaya, Sanyukta Nikaya, etc.. All westerners fall into the trap of analyzing and philosophizing Buddhism. Buddhism is a practice and it’s about attaining direct experience. Ironically Buddhism or Buddhist practice is all about escaping from too much thinking ….
You are correct in that the word tradition is somewhat misleading. It is not a tradition in terms of being a sect or something like that. It is a term used to describe a way of systematized and structured analysis, but yes of course it is oriented practically toward liberation and direct experience.
I didn't know as much as I do now about the historical background of Buddhist traditions in Nāgārjuna's time when making this, and would have worded myself more carefully now.
This video was meant to explain the thought of Nāgārjuna and those he influenced. I believe that Nāgārjuna realized your last point and much of his work is dissolving the pseudo-problems created by schools that tried to make a comprehensive "metaphysics" behind Buddhism. I tried to make that clear in the video. I didn't spell out the implied end result which is to turn away from constructing systems of metaphysics and turn towards practice and the directly experienced, so maybe not doing that made it sound overly systematized and metaphysical. I am at least one westerner who knows that Buddhist practice has a goal of making the mind clear and peaceful, even if the route to do so may involve teasing the mind to break it out of its tendency to analyze.