[Buddha-l] Re: Jesus is Buddha?

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 13:29 -0500, Dante Rosati wrote:

> Isn't studying and thinking about Madhyamaka supposed to be good for
> you? Isn't it supposed to lead to a deeper understanding of reality? 

Being able to give a clear presentation of Nagarjuna's thought is not a
magic pill that will make one immune from cancer, heart disease,
depression, paranoia or even garden variety foolishness. 

In fact, this is just what we would expect from what Nagarjuna tells us
about emptiness. Nothing has a fixed nature of its own but rather
everything has a constantly floating nature that is the sum of all
conditions, all of which are temporary. When one set of conditions are
present (such as a history of studying several languages and perhaps
having had the right conditions to be able to think well as a
philosopher), then one can, at least temporarily, explain Nagarjuna
well. When other conditions are present (such as living in among people
who are prone to laying simplistic blame for various societal hardships
on "aliens"), then one becomes an anti-Semite or an alarmist about
Islamo-fascism or Communists. When others, who have other kinds of
conditioning, view what the anti-Semite (or the Inquisitor or the
Crusader or the Nazi) says, it may look like some kind of madness. Where
in all this is truth? Well, a Mahadyamika response is likely to be that
what one regards as truth all depends entirely on how one is
conditioned, because the very idea of truth, like all things, is
conditioned. And so are the very ideas of mental health and
righteousness.

> But then I wonder, is it possible for someone so mentally ill to be a
> reliable scholar of Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka philosophy?

Why not? Being mentally ill might even give one a slight advantage.
Nagarjuna himself could easily be seen as someone who was a few beers
short of a six-pack.

>  Could one be clearheaded enough to follow Nagarjuna's arguments, and
> then put on an SS uniform to go party? It kinda boggles the mind,
> n'est pas?

I am having a hard time being boggled by this. In fact, I see a certain
phenomenological consistency in the kind of thinking Nagarjuna does and
the kind of thinking a Fundamentalist, or a Nazi, does. What they both
have in common is a sort of obsessive reliance on oversimplification,
literalism and the application of one kind of argument to solve all
problems. They are both hyper-rational and devoid of subtlety. If one
talks to a Fundamentalist (or a Nazi or a bigot or a Madhyamaika) one
often encounters a steel wall of impeccable logic. Every avenue of
potential criticism has been shut out by a recursive application of a
simplistic method of thinking. In fact, I almost find it surprising that
we don't find more fanatics among the ranks of Nagarjuna scholars.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico