Fw: [Buddha-l] Causality and Western philosophy

[jkirk]

Hello Bob

Glad my thought resonated----your point well-taken.
I see the significance for conversations between western and Indian 
philosophies not only in terms of dukkha, but more so in terms of anatman 
(anatta) and western concepts of essence, which seem to have occupied many a 
western philosopher. If P-S, then no essence. As I recall, the western 
linguistic philosophers exposed the notion of essence (and we could perhaps 
say, of nama-rupa by extension) as a function of language operations, and 
more power to them.  But traditional western preoccupations with metaphysics 
as a result of the impact of Christianity and the soul concept on centuries 
of scholars led to essentialism of all kinds (of course in his own way Plato 
subscribed to it as well, but differently from the Christians), a 
development that finally began to be deconstructed in late 19th c European 
thought. (This is just a nutshell statement.) That development is what led 
some Buddhist scholars in recent years to notice resemblances between 
Najarjuna et al and Derrida et al. But since the deconstructionist activity 
seems to have been mostly situated within literary philosophy, that might be 
the reason why Ram Prasad seems not to have become aware of this angle of 
vision on his question. (All this off the top of my head but, I hope, not 
off the wall :)

As for psychology studies, to the degree that psychology is often presented 
in terms of essentialist concepts, or concepts that are often taken that way 
(e.g., to name just some obvious ones -- id, ego, superego, or "the" 
unconscious), seems to me that a good critique from Buddhist philosophy 
might be a
worthwhile stimulus for class discussions.

Best,
Joanna K.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Zeuschner" <rbzeuschner at adelphia.net>
To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [Buddha-l] Causality and Western philosophy


> 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