[Buddha-l] Bangladesh Muslim lovefest

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Op 3-10-2012 13:36, Dan Lusthaus schreef:
> Erik writes:
>> My problem with this is that groups are not real things, but 
>> concepts, ways of dealing with phenomena, or do you want to return to 
>> Medieval conceptual realism?
>
> They are prajnaptic and samvrtic. When *you* ask "do *you* want..." 
> and begin with "*My problem is..." you demonstrate that you too live 
> and act and interact in a prajnaptic, samvrtic world. Are you living 
> in a medieval conceptual realism?
No, conventional and relative speech does not have to refer to ideas 
that exist independently. But you are putting yourself on a position 
outside the prajnaptic, samvrtic world, so here applies the argument of 
Na-ga-rjuna in MMK 9:

8
vigrahe yah paráîáha-ram kr,te s'u-nyataya- vadet |
sarvam tasya-parihr,tam samam sa-dhyena ja-yate ||

9
vya-khya-ne ya upa-lambham kr,te s'u-nyataya- vadet |
sarvam tasya-nupa-labdham samam sa-dhyena ja-yate ||

8
Who in a discussion answers with an appeal to emptiness when an 
objection is made, makes all his (points) that are not disproved invalid 
with the proof.

9
Who in a comment answers with an appeal to emptiness when criticism is 
made, makes all his (points) that are not criticized invalid with the 
proof.


> Karma is samvrtic. As the sammitiyas, yogacaras and Santideva in the 
> Madhyamakan camp (and arguably the Sautrantikas as well) realized, 
> without prajnapti there is no karma. Because you say there is no 
> forest (because it is a prajnapti) does not mean you can't get lost in 
> it. Nor does it mean that the forest on its own, interacting 
> ecologically, is "unreal." A certain static, abstracted, 
> conceptualized notion of "forest" is unreal, but the underlying 
> complex causal processes that are heuristically represented by the 
> word "forest" are real.
Science has made it abundantly clear that if you want to save the 
forest, you have to save the trees. Bringing offerings to the spirit of 
the forest didn't help very much.
>
> That "groups" are prajnaptis and hence in an important sense "unreal" 
> does not mean that they don't exist at all: samvrti-sat. To mistake 
> samvrti-sat for dismissible nonexistence is cheap sophistry, and 
> dangerous for a Buddhist; it is precisely the sort of incorrigible 
> trap that Nagarjuna warns is like grasping a snake the wrong way.
It does, because no one ever had a decent conversation with the team 
spirit of the Red Sox or the group identitiy of all New York citizens 
with a black tie.
>
>> The problem here is that karma always has the meaning of some kind of 
>> action with consequences. So if I receive passively influences from 
>> others...
>
> Mutual influence is neither strictly passive nor active -- there are 
> intentions, things one is prone to notice, things one will neglect and 
> overlook, propensities toward things, embodied conditioning 
> (samskaras) from prior experiences and prior lifetimes. Volitions 
> (cetana) are also conditioned, so to some extent choosing action is 
> also conditioned and passive, unless you want to return to a Christian 
> medieval metaphysic of freewill, which is no longer Buddhism. 
This is a classical sophistry, called a fork. From the fact that choices 
are not 100% based on reflection, but also on coïncidence and 
conditions, does not follow that they are completely caused. If that 
would be the case, our discussion would just be the meaningless 
interaction of causes and effects. And freewill is not Christian nor 
Medieval, that is predestination.
> Anyoniso manasikara means to not fully pay attention to the full 
> context. From one perspective, we are all passive receivers, even of 
> our own intentions. From another, we are actively constructing the 
> frames through which we notice, ignore, evaluate and comprehend. And 
> it's all our karma, hence we are responsible for dealing with it all, 
> whatever its source. You don't get a free pass just hecause it's 
> passively received from a previous life, or from another (you wouldn't 
> have even noticed it, had your karma not primed you to, so nothing is 
> completely innocently passive).
The funny part is that you seem to forget that responsibility is also 
prajnaptic and samvrti and that it is even a way people relate to each 
other. No one is just responsible, you need someone to whom you are 
responsible and someone who holds you responsible. Consequences of 
actions are something completely different, animals are not responsible 
for what they do, but they have to bear the consequences thereof.
Now you mistake interaction for influence. In a strict sense you have 
influenced me because I could not write this message without it. But 
since I was not born yesterday, I recognize patterns and arguments and 
my reaction should make it clear that I do not agree with you. Perhaps 
it is because of Vasubandhu's mercantile metaphors of bags with 
karmaseeds that we keep safely in our storehouse until the moment we 
exchange them with others, that you suggest that influences go in and 
out without filtering. And perhaps it is the shadow of a dead God 
hanging over you when you think that you are responsible for things you 
do inadvertently such as breathing and feeling cold.
>
> Thanks, Erik. You are illustrating exactly the sort of problems and 
> incompatibilities that arise from  mixing Buddhist thought with some 
> contemporary western trends.
Always welcome, Dan, but I don't see any incompatibilities. As a 
philosopher I just try to understand and I don't switch between Buddhist 
mode and Western mode.

Erik