[Buddha-l] Views of Information & Knowledge (Culture & Religion)

[jehms_pop.xs4all.nl]

>===== Original Message From Buddhist discussion forum 
<buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com> =====
>Hi Erik,
>
>If the statements of these yogis can have no relevance beyond their own
>cultuarlly-bound context, why should we look at them at all? In the
>perspective you advocate, they cannot have any relevance to our lives.
>Surely the existential and ethical conditions of classical India are even
>more different from our modern circumstances than basic aspects of
>perception.

Hi Barnaby,
very good question! This means that not all they say is relevant to us and we 
have to find out what is and what isn't. So some magical tricks for instance 
which are described in the tantras are not. What may be relevant is the part 
that deals with our daily experiences, which we share with all human beings, 
the lifeworld.

>
>And for that matter, if words are completely bound to their context and do
>not refer in any meaningful way to a shared world, then how is it possible
>that we can understand their words in any way whatsoever? If there is
>nothing to language beyond how it is used in the context of a language game,
>then there is no reference at all, and there is no common basis for
>intelligibility.

The common basis is constructed when people take part in a languagegame. That 
there is no common base in itself is precisely the core of madhyamaka 
philosophy.

>
>It seems so much easier and better to me to take the "middle way" and
>acknowledge that some aspects of mutual comprehension are culture-bound, but
>language also describes a state of affairs that we more or less all
>experience. Indeed, this is a common view in Indian Buddhism, and led to the
>doctrine of "collective karma" in the Yogacara system.
>
Let's not go into that. This collective karma is an oxymoron, because it's 
karma with out responsability. If I were to accept that, I could as well call 
myself a Calvinist, because the idea of collective karma is no different from 
the idea of original sin.
There may be no exact dividing line between aspects that are not bound to 
history and culture and aspects that are. This is the problem of interpreting 
texts. 
And it's never good to just presume something without providing a good reason, 
this has seldomly been considered a good advice in Buddhism. The trick of 
hermeneutics is to find out what part we share more or less with the intended 
public, but it is never granted.


Erik

groet

erik