[Buddha-l] Re: Emptiness

[curt]

Joy Vriens wrote:
> One can also wonder whether "things" are all there is? Or whether "Thingifying" is the only possible mode. To "thingify" and "things" is already to practice reductionism. Within that reductionism or reduced experience, every thing is caused by other things.
>
>   

As Dan Lusthaus has pointed out (here: 
http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm ) western 
philosophy tends to start from ontology (things) whereas Indian 
philosophy tends to start from epistemology (consciousness). Or, in his 
own words:

"Mainstream Western philosophy since Plato and Aristotle has treated 
ontology and metaphysics as the ultimate philosophic pursuit, with 
epistemology's role being little more than to provide access and 
justification for one's ontological pursuits and commitments..... 
[Whereas] [i]n Indian philosophy one finds the reverse of this. 
Epistemology (pramāṇavāda) is primary, both in the sense that it must be 
engaged in prior to attempting any other philosophical endeavor, and 
that the limits of one's metaphysical claims are always inviolably set 
by the parameters established by one's epistemology. Before one can make 
claims, one must establish the basis on which such claims can be proven 
and justified."

Personally I think that the "ontological" emphasis only comes in with 
modern western philosophy, or, possibly with what passed for 
"philosophy" during the Middle Ages. Socrates certainly was more 
interested in epistemology than ontology ("know thyself") - and this 
continued to be fundamental to Greek philosophy (see for example the 
opening paragraphs of Epictetus' Discourses).

In fact, however, both Greek and Indian philosophy take as their stating 
points "self-knowledge" and ethics - which are seen as inseparable - and 
everything else flows from asking basic questions such as "who am I?" 
and "how should I live?"

Curt Steinmetz