Jay Garfield's commentary on The Mulamadhymakakarika was the starting point for me in terms of studying philosophy in general and delving deep into the Dharma. That book literally changed my life at the age of 17 going forward
Very well put! When reading Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti and Tsongkhapa it's not easy to keep hold of this balance between 'all reason' and 'no reason'. Thanks ever so much!
Professor Jay Garfield has enormous knowledge in Eastern Philosophy, I am taking his course in the meaning of life in the Great Courses platform and it brought huge piles of great knowledge to me.
Garfield has to purge himself of Wittgenstein. Once he does that, he may begin to understand the Madhyamika. And the Madhyamika is nothing less than the gemstone of all human accomplishment to date.
THANK YOU...praising REASON above all else...The VOID of NON-VOID is the great STATE as it were..."you musn't cling to the VOID, you have to avoid the VOID...by Alan Watts"
Please correct me on my understanding? Reason as a tool all along to the point where it subverts itself to transcend into non-conceptual knowledge, by avoiding two extremities of over-reason and under-reason, thus following the middle path.
Well, any wisdom of emptiness (actual vipassana) is analytical. Be it conceptual (as is the inferential realization) or non-conceptual (as is the direct realization), it is still analytical. But I'm not sure it was your point when you referred broadly to "reason". Still, as you say: you engage emptiness conceptually up to the point where you engage is directly. Basically, the idea is that your mind will become so subtle that it won't realize its object of engagement through the appearance of a mental image anymore.
No. Reason is concepts. Concepts get their meaning only from their opposite. For example, if I want to define what the concept "srivash" is, I have to do so in terms of "non-srivash". E.G. a srivash has four legs, people sit on it. "Four, legs, sit"...all these things are different from a srivash. But to say "Reality is of the nature of a srivash and to give meaning to the concept "srivash" is to define it in terms of what it is not. This leads to necessary self-contradiction. All attempts to state..."Reality is of the nature of....X." must necessarily be self-contradictory because the meaning of X must always be given in terms of non-X. The middle path is to reject both thesis and antithesis, not clinging dogmatically to either extreme.....because both thesis and antithesis are equally self-contradictory. To avoid both dogmas of a thesis and antithesis is the meaning of the middle way. To see the self-contradictions and point them out is to be a logician.
The reason is the tool to learn about its being barren. Reason being devoid of preconceptions or biases is empty itself, thus, becomes an insight or intuition.
Analysing down to the core of senseful solid concepts, finding no sense in determining any 'right one', at some point reaching the other point of this depressive moment: the realm beyond has a subtle feeling side of it but also the conceptual side, which asks to be decoded, formulated in thought. The process is driven by the urge to find the currently proper, alive concept, like an energetic key to the moment.
The view that reason is relative and can never capture reality is not itself a view of reality. It is a meta-view, a view of views. Knowledge of reality is direct, non-rational (not irrational), intuitive. Not recursive, black, white, big, small. Reality is beyond all reason, all concepts.
I mean really...... isn't half the point of Nagajuna that he didn't like bickering and endless convoluted sophistry? that's what i was just hearing, when i tuned into this i got half way through .... it does seem that it is way overthinking it and overshooting the mark... with all due respect.
Jay Garfield's commentary on The Mulamadhymakakarika was the starting point for me in terms of studying philosophy in general and delving deep into the Dharma. That book literally changed my life at the age of 17 going forward
Thanks for the tip! I can also recommend Murthi's 'The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: An analysis of the Madhyamaka System'
Very well put! When reading Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti and Tsongkhapa it's not easy to keep hold of this balance between 'all reason' and 'no reason'. Thanks ever so much!
Professor Jay Garfield has enormous knowledge in Eastern Philosophy, I am taking his course in the meaning of life in the Great Courses platform and it brought huge piles of great knowledge to me.
News flash. Garfield is failed his courses recently at the School of Buddhist Dialectics in India.
@@lurking0death Perhaps this many not be good news for the School of Buddhist Dialectics
very helpful what jay garfields saying
Garfield has to purge himself of Wittgenstein. Once he does that, he may begin to understand the Madhyamika. And the Madhyamika is nothing less than the
gemstone of all human accomplishment to date.
Would you elaborate a little more please?
THANK YOU...praising REASON above all else...The VOID of NON-VOID is the great STATE as it were..."you musn't cling to the VOID, you have to avoid the VOID...by Alan Watts"
Putting this into practice, Gyobutsuji Zen Monastery with Shoryu Bradley :)
Please correct me on my understanding? Reason as a tool all along to the point where it subverts itself to transcend into non-conceptual knowledge, by avoiding two extremities of over-reason and under-reason, thus following the middle path.
Well, any wisdom of emptiness (actual vipassana) is analytical. Be it conceptual (as is the inferential realization) or non-conceptual (as is the direct realization), it is still analytical. But I'm not sure it was your point when you referred broadly to "reason".
Still, as you say: you engage emptiness conceptually up to the point where you engage is directly. Basically, the idea is that your mind will become so subtle that it won't realize its object of engagement through the appearance of a mental image anymore.
No. Reason is concepts. Concepts get their meaning only from their opposite. For example, if I want to define what the concept "srivash" is, I have to do so in terms of "non-srivash". E.G. a srivash has four legs, people sit on it. "Four, legs, sit"...all these things are different from a srivash. But to say "Reality is of the nature of a srivash and to give meaning to the concept "srivash" is to define it in terms of what it is not. This leads to necessary self-contradiction. All attempts to state..."Reality is of the nature of....X." must necessarily be self-contradictory because the meaning of X must always be given in terms of non-X. The middle path is to reject both thesis and antithesis, not clinging dogmatically to either extreme.....because both thesis and antithesis are equally self-contradictory. To avoid both dogmas of a thesis and antithesis is the meaning of the middle way. To see the self-contradictions and point them out is to be a logician.
The reason is the tool to learn about its being barren. Reason being devoid of preconceptions or biases is empty itself, thus, becomes an insight or intuition.
Analysing down to the core of senseful solid concepts, finding no sense in determining any 'right one', at some point reaching the other point of this depressive moment: the realm beyond has a subtle feeling side of it but also the conceptual side, which asks to be decoded, formulated in thought. The process is driven by the urge to find the currently proper, alive concept, like an energetic key to the moment.
Wonderful
NAGARJUNA
Nagarjuna: the Key is compassion
Jay: o think It IS reason
Nagarjuna: are you listen?
Professor Garfield how would you reason Jesus rose from death?
basically reason is recursive because recursion itself is reason ! or is it?
The view that reason is relative and can never capture reality is not itself a view of reality. It is a meta-view, a view of views. Knowledge of reality is direct, non-rational (not irrational), intuitive. Not recursive, black, white, big, small. Reality is beyond all reason, all concepts.
I mean really...... isn't half the point of Nagajuna that he didn't like bickering and endless convoluted sophistry? that's what i was just hearing, when i tuned into this i got half way through .... it does seem that it is way overthinking it and overshooting the mark... with all due respect.
Professor Garfield is caught in reasoning because he cannot think beyond. Think out of box. Garfield is no Chandrkiti
LANGUAGE is useless..words cannot
yet you use language to tell me that, maybe you need more nuance
Language is useless in getting us to where beyond language can touch.
Er ....language is surely useful if not sufficient or complete