[Buddha-l] Maybe I was wrong

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard wrote:
> What has puzzled me about Nāgārjuna is his claim that one can be liberated 
> from discontent by learning not to think that things have essential 
> natures. One way I have articulated my puzzlement is to say that Nāgārjuna 
> seems to be offering a cure to a disease that no one actually has. 
> Recently I have rethought that assessment. There might be something to 
> that guy after all.
>
> http://wp.me/prOnR-1J

Nice to see you finally coming around.

Tangential, but perhaps germane, is a long-standing dissatisfaction with the 
presumed training that academics are receiving in order to study "Buddhism". 
Richard and I will probably agree that a major problem today is that in too 
many Buddhist studies programs serious philosophical training not only is 
not required or encouraged, it can be actively discouraged. Similarly -- and 
perhaps Richard is coming around to this view (or has held it?) -- serious 
training in psychology has NOT been part of the curriculum. By "psychology" 
I don't mean a layman's familiarity with theorists like Freud and Jung 
(though even that is often lacking), but nuts and bolts clinical and 
experimental psychology -- on such things as psychology of perception, 
hedonic studies, behavior modification, brain and neurological studies, etc.

Sadly, many attracted to Buddhism also buy into the anti-science rubbish 
that floats around our culture. Richard has also argued in the past that he 
finds the theory of the twelve links of conditioned co-arising 
(pratitya-samutpada) irrational. Perhaps some exposure to BF Skinner, et al. 
would reveal not only its cogency, but its very observable and potent 
factuality.

One cannot profitably read much basic Buddhist doctrine, not to mention a 
good deal of abhidharma, without a solid grounding in serious psychological 
studies. The "pain/pleasure" studies are now getting popular attention --  
thanks to some recent books and promoters -- but there is a wealth of 
important and interesting material on how the senses and mind work to 
construct our world for us -- some anticipated or prefigured in some 
Buddhist literature, and some being discovered or recognized for the first 
time. Exciting times.

The historiographical focus (even philology is on the wane) that has 
overtaken many Buddhist studies programs is fine if one wants to enjoy the 
city by the veneer of its buildings. If you want to try to get inside the 
lives of the inhabitants of the city, philosophy and psychology are 
indispensible.

Dan