Fw: [Buddha-l] Causality and Western philosophy

[Bob Zeuschner]

Hi Joanna--
I too share your attitude towards pratityasamutpada.
When I teach early Buddhism, after the traditional bio of Siddhartha, I 
begin with pratityasamutpada as the foundation of most Buddhist concepts 
and practices. I use David Kalupahana's "Pratityasamutpada" text book 
and find it very helpful.
Although Buddhism focuses on P-S in the context of arising of dukkha, 
that focus would not work well for most Western philosophy. I'm guessing 
that P-S might work in a philosophy of science courses, where one does 
an analysis of causality in general. I wonder if it would be useful in a 
psychology course?
Bob

jkirk wrote:

> What a stimulating comparative article Ram Prasad has written. 
> Responding on
> the spur to one of his concluding remarks:
> 
> "It may be that terms from non-western traditions will also become keys of
> analysis in a future global tradition of thought,..."
> 
> This strikes me as a creative idea in that I, at least, have never come 
> across the
> Buddhist concept of pratitya samutpada in any of the western philosophy 
> that
> I've read -- but I admit I've only read some of them.  Taking up that
> concept and the discourse surrounding it might supply a rich and innovative
> point from which to develop the potential of philosophical conversation 
> between
> the European traditions and the Indian ones, in the formal contexts that 
> I think
> Ram Prasad refers to.  P-S is not a typical "western" philosophical 
> notion--I've
> always found it to be quite unique in providing a really different slant 
> on questions
> of reality (or Reality).