NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/philosop/meta/2891

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 6.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!think.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!sics.se!ag
From: [e-mail] (Anders G|ransson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 16:19:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: GRAMMA
Lines: 142
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 2 Jan 93 14:05:31 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Lorenzo Farris) writes:


   In article <[e-mail]>,
   [e-mail] (Anders G|ransson) writes:
   [lots deleted, including a discussion of a perceived
   self-contradiction in the texts of Buddhism]

   >
   > In my view then the idea (if meaningful at all) that the world
   > can be understood through pure logic has nothing at all to do
   > with Buddhism.
   >

   In my understanding of Buddhism, logic is quite integral. When one
   begins to make a prelimary examination of the texts of Buddhism, one
   will certainly find such inconsistencies. The reason for this, IMO,
   goes as follows.


There are certainly many different senses of 'logic' around.
To begin with one might ask whether you mean 'logic' as
understood by the active Buddhists at the time when Buddhism began
spreading in India. Or as understood by Buddhists of this or
that sect of Buddhism current today. Or as understood by the
general public in USA or Europe today. Or as understood by those
who have studied some year of philosophy today in USA or Europe.
Or understood in its current technical fashion i.e. mathematical
logic in the shape of an axiomatic system with precisely
formulated axioms and a few deduction rules (or in the shape of
a natural deduction system) or some other system such as
intuitionistic logic or modal logic etc.
Without some such precision we can discuss the role of logic
in Buddhism until we are blue without getting anywhere.( Of
course it is possible we won't get anywhere with precision either.)


   Buddhism is not simply a branch of philosophy. It is not meant to be a
   coherent and logical system of thought. Upon detailed examination, it
   may turn out to be, but that is not its primary function.

From my cursory studies of a few sutras this is the impression I
got. To be frank I found it to be something radically different from
any philosophy I had previously studied and it made a great
impression on me.
What 'detailed examination' is to stand for seems vague indeed.
To carry out some such there must be something to examine. As I
believe Peter Cash pointed out the other day Buddhism in its
scriptures is a vast material. Having in some way delimited this
vast material one must be clear on what should be meant be
'coherent' and 'logical' in relation to this material. I dare
say that with the ordinary western concepts of coherence and
logic it is not possible to find any interesting portion of the
Buddhistic scriptures that would be coherent and logical. This
is based on acquaintance with the Diamond Sutra and a few other.
Nota bene I myself have no desire to transform Buddhism into
some rational system neither have I any desire to find
inconsistencies in Buddhism.


   Buddhism is a complex of techniques and philosophy for the purpose, in
   the short term, of ending mental suffering, and in the long term, of
   direct perception of Reality. (Both of these ideas are indeed vague,
   but the content of these ideas is not central to my argument.;)


   The various scriptures of Buddhism are geared towards different levels
   and temperaments of students of Buddhism. A 'beginning Buddhist' may
   be recommended to read the sutras regularly, as a means of learning
   proper conduct and attitude.

Now you are talking about living in a Buddhistic community.
Living in Stockholm, Sweden the conduct and attitude is
regulated by other mechanisms. As to follow the Buddhistic rules
for conduct here, well I suppose you live in the world yourself.
But if you mean to imply that it is impossible to understand
anything about Buddhism without living in a Buddhistic society
you might well be right about that.

   A 'pedantic Buddhist' would get railed against, as his attachment to
   words keeps him from true wisdom.

They would rail against the poor fellow.

   In Buddhism, logic is used in the beginning to get people to live
   rationally and in harmony.

'Logic', as said above, must be somewhat clarified.

   Later, it is used to discrimate between what is real and what is
   transient. A Buddhist logician says "this is not real, and that is not
   real."

Aha, a Buddhist logician sounds a lot like Russell et al.

   In esoteric buddhist teaching, certain knowledge cannot be transmitted
   by words, it must be given by a teacher, who transmits that knowledge
   through non-verbal means.

Reading the Diamond Sutra one gets the impression that no
knowledge can be transmitted by words or that what is transmitted
by words is neither knowledge nor truth and that there is no
doctrine in Buddhism.
This impression one gets because this is bluntly stated in the
text itself. Of course there is the problem of translation, the
problem of bridging two thousand year and a large cultural gap.
The translation I have is by A.F Price. I also have the
translation contained in the series 'Ch'an and zen teaching'.

Whether there are knowledge transmitted by other means
(the interesting question what these means are and whether
they are in some way dependent on language left aside) one can
sometime get the impression that there is no knowledge
whatsoever in Buddhism. To say this not in any way an attempt to
find Buddhism lacking in some respect or to find some
contradiction in it. I think you misunderstood my purpose with
the previous post.

   The above is not meant as a statement of the truth of Buddhism, or
   anything else of the sort. I simply hoped to put into perspective some
   of the perceived inconsistencies  in Buddhist scripture. If one really
   wants to get into Buddhism as a rational endeavor, s/he should study
   up on Buddhist logic, which I may have seen, but not in any formal
   sense.


I'm not out here to try to point out some inconsistencies in
Buddhism. My previous articles in reply to Leo Smith was
motivated by his statements on Buddhism, its relation to some
greek idea of understanding the universe through pure logic,
that seemed to me to go against what I had read in the
Buddhistic sutras themselves.




best regards Anders
--


If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.