This cheeseball video (which I refer to in the podcast as the source of my pronunciations of "Nagarjuna" and "Madhyamika") reveals that Nagarjuna had a midwestern accent and some goofy iMovie effects at his disposal. He likes using the same font as Avatar, too. And is that a ney flute I hear? Hell, yeah!
My design in doing a Buddhism episode was really to look at contributions that specific thinkers have made to still-current debates on metaphysics and epistemology, but as we found, it's awfully hard not to get sucked into the tenets of Buddhism more generally, and of course being churlish about a world religion is going to raise more hackles than my casting aspersions on Rousseau or Plato.
I don't know, therefore, how much I'll feel the need over the next couple weeks to blog about the heartfelt but sometimes creepy presence of Buddhism on the web and in the margins of our culture. Following one's independent spiritual journey is very much in the spirit of what I like about philosophy, meaning that this is the part of living religion that I can't much object to on the grounds that children are being brainwashed into it, but at the same time, well, this video gives ample aesthetic grounds to object to the whole pursuit.
At around 3:40, the narrator gives the "fire and fuel" example that is a variation of the point we touched on about causality. Can we distinguish between a fire and what is burning? I'm going to ignore the narrator's attempt at a modern insertion: "Even at an atomic level, the fire-fuel units can be simplified indefinitely." That sentence does not make sense to me given what I know about chemistry. The narrator states "not only can the fire and fuel be considered neither the same nor different because of the indistinguishable boundary, but the concepts of same and different do not apply." Stated this way, this is plainly wrong. Fuel, prior to ignition, is certainly not fire, and when it is ignited, fire is one of a few products of the chemical reaction.
There is a general problem of causality and change here, but the video doesn't express it. Specifically, how can a cause (fuel plus other things) produce an effect (fire and other things), particularly if the cause goes out of existence as the effect is produced? A cause has to connect somehow with the effect, yet how can this be if the cause doesn't exist simultaneously with the effect? The relevant chapter in Nagarjuna's Foundation Stanzas is here.
Here's an excerpt:
7. If fire and wood eliminated each other, even though fire is something other than wood, it would have to connect with wood.
8. If fire were dependent on wood and wood were dependent on fire, of what becomes fire and wood dependently, which would be established first?
9. If fire were dependent on wood, [already] established fire would be established [again]. Firewood also would be [such] even without fire.
10. If a thing (A) is established dependently (on B), [but] if what it depends upon (B) is established also in dependence on that very thing (A), what would be established in dependence on what?
11. How can a thing (A) which is established dependently (on B) be dependent (on B) when it (A) is not established? If one asks, “how can establishment be dependent?” It is not reasonable for it (A) to be dependent.
12. There is no fire that is dependent on wood; there is also no fire that is not dependent on wood. There is no wood that is dependent on fire; there is also no wood that is not dependent on fire.
I think that Nagarjuna is precipitous in #12 here in throwing away the whole game because he can't come up with an account that makes sense of the relation between the cause and the effect, but it's a legitimate philosophical problem, and if you can figure out what N. is saying (instead of just parroting it like the guy on the video in a way that does't make a lot of sense and doesn't clarify the philosophical issue), then N's deliberations here constitute an interesting and more detailed treatment than anything of comparable antiquity that I'm familiar with from the West. (We'll have to dig into those Pre-Socratics more for me to confirm that.)
-Mark Linsenmayer
Hey! This comment is not entirely relevant to the Nagarjuna episode or Buddhist thought, although I do have an offhand comment about it. I mainly just wanted to express my appreciation for the podcast.
I have been listening to them without fail since ep. 5 or thereabouts (I went back and listened to the first ones, too), and I really enjoy and value every one so far. I also (unlike some more “serious” listeners who have commented in the past) like the “snarky yet smart” tone.
To me, this podcast is the best equivalent to actually discussing philosophical matters at the local pub with a group of intelligent friends who also have a sense of humor. (Apparently I am missing that in my day-to-day life… lol. My friends are great, but few if any are the type to indulge my philosophical side in conversation)
Anyway, more power to you all! You have my full support and attention. Looking forward to some more Kant and maybe some middle-period (positivist) Nietzsche?
Thanks, Corey. I don’t know if I ever heard Nietzsche called a “positivist” before. Are you talking about the epistemological stuff in Zarathustra, or Gay Science, or what, specifically?
I hadn’t heard it applied to Nietzsche either until I came across it in Julian Young’s “Philosophical Biography” of him, which I am reading.
The author may be doing his own unorthodox reading of Nietzsche (I know most people have their own unique take on him since he is so hard to pin down), but he seems to be using the term to refer to his middle period books, “Human All too human”, “Daybreak” and “The Wanderer and His Shadow,” in which N. seems to be trying to construct a system of mental and social self-improvement to counter the nihilist impulse. Or something like that. (It may or may not include “Gay Science”.. i haven’t gotten that far in the biography yet)
My degree was in political science so I first read Nietzsche as a social thinker anyway, in college. I admit I’m not an expert, but I do know that Nietzsche barely makes the grade as a serious philosopher on the level of Hume, Kant, etc. I have enjoyed Nietzsche, though, as essays and social commentary, especially since I have been reading his lesser known works lately and learning that he wasn’t just a pretentious William Burroughs-type 🙂
Once again, thanks for the excellent podcasts!
Corey
What Nagarjuna is saying here, is that fire and wood do not exist seperate from each other.
In the simplest terms, that the fire is the wood and the wood is the fire.
What he’s trying to convey through saying this, is that when you (a person) hear the word fire, you attach meaning to it. The meaning you attach to it, is derived from meanings you attach to other objects. (wood for example) In your mind, (as in all minds lol) you know fire isn’t wood, because wood isn’t fire. When you hear the word fire, part of your understanding of that word and what it defines, comes from its interaction with wood. Fire burns wood etc. The same is true for the word wood.
What Nagarjuna is saying, is that the differences your mind sees between fire and wood, is merely an illusion. It’s your mind, using one non-existent thing (fire) to establish a value for another non-existent thing (wood). Sort of like using a phantom, to prove the difference (therefore existence) of another phantom.
In number 12, all Nagarjuna is saying is that there is no fire or wood. They are not dependant on eachother in anyway, because neither actually exist. And they are also not not dependant on eachother, because they don’t actually exist.
This might sound redundant or like you said “he’s throwing the game out”. But what he’s actually saying, is that if something doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist. It’s not absent, because if it were absent, then it would still essentially exist.
This I think, is a very hard concept for most people to grasp. The idea of nothing, as actually nothing is hard to comprehend. Which is why, i prefer to think of (when i’m trying to explain to people who may not be mahayana buddhists) Nagarjuna’s/Buddha’s philosophy as One thing, rather than nothing.
Another way to look at it, would be like the number zero. All numbers derive their value from 0. (assume they do, i’m no math guy lol) Now imagine, as Nagurjuna does and is saying, that all other numbers are really just a form of the number 0. They’re simply all ways of just expressing 0 again and again. Now imagine, that concept, applied to all other things. Not just numbers, that all things….were simply just ways of expressing 0 again and again. Now imagine the number 0, wasn’t actually the number zero. But was actually nothing. Not a void, but not there. Whatever you would call that , that is what in essence, Nagarjuna would call something with own-being. Something like that, would not change with it’s relationship to any other thing. So again, it wouldn’t burn or not burn. It wouldn’t be wood or not be wood. It would only be what it is and what it is, would not be apparent to the senses. Because if you did perceieve it, you’d only be perceiving your connection to it, not it.
So that is how Nagarjuna makes sense of the relation between cause and effect. Causes are effects and effects are causes. They’re the same. And they both don’t actually exist. They’re merely just expressions of expressions of other expressions. It can be insanely complicated like combustion, or insanely simple like the example of tallness. (tallness wouldn’t exist without shortness, so does shortness cause tallness, or does tallness cause shortness?)
Anywho, hope this helps to clarify Nagarjuna’s thinking.
Hi, Mike,
Thanks again for contributing; it sounds like you’re actually a Mahayana Buddhist, and I’m grateful that you’re weighing in here. (Listen to the episode if you haven’t already; I’d love to hear what you think.) However, your account here doesn’t make things clear to me at all.
First of all, it’s not just a matter of convention that I regard wood and fire (even at the moment a piece of wood is burning) as conceptually distinct. It’s a matter of chemical analysis of what’s going on.
I know he’s saying that the difference we see between these is illusory, and that both of the individual components are illusory, but you’ve given (and the video does not give) any arguments to this effect. They’re pretty hard to find in Nagarjuna, as well; mostly he just states the view over and over again without defending it (being specific about all the particular things that are illusory doesn’t constitute giving an argument that they’re all illusory). What I learned about this I got from the Westerhoff book (http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/10/10/secondary-sources-for-nagarjuna/), and a lot of the point of my post here was to point out that what is taken as explanation of a religious doctrine isn’t typically sufficient for philosophical purposes.
Your point about conceptual interdependence is well-taken, though, and I think we actually did cover that pretty well on the podcast episode. We were definitely not certain whether to think of the “true world” according to Nagarjuna as Nothingness (Erik didn’t like this formulation, certainly) or as Oneness (Nagarjuna at least doesn’t seem to argue for this, though it’s a common enough mystical concept) or as Unknowable (which is what Seth was advocating; part of the Westerhoff specifically argues against that, though; maybe I’ll have time to dredge that out for another post).
Hi,
This sort of reminds me of something i saw on t.v. the other week. A jesuit priest was arguing with an astrophysicist about the origin of the universe. And they just couldn’t agree, because the priest kept saying “that had to be created by something” over and over again.
The reason this reminds me of that, is your statement here:
“First of all, it’s not just a matter of convention that I regard wood and fire as conceptually distinct. It’s a matter of chemical analysis of what’s going on”
I can only really respond by saying that that’s your judgement of what’s going on. That’s your interpretation of your understanding of what’s going on. Because the proof of your statement, in your mind, lies within your statement. It’s self asserting. Fire and wood are different, because chemically they are different. So when wood is burning, chemical reactions are taking place…therefore the chemical reactions prove that something has changed. Etc. Etc…..
But like Nagurjuna, that’s just you repeating your same argument over and over again. Things are different, because they are not the same. And you know things aren’t the same, because they are different. Do you understand?
It’s a little like saying the easter bunny is real, because he’s not santa clause.
Of course, that’s the most offensive way i can put it. LOL : ) But it’s actually sort of like trying to explain why 2+2=4.
At a certain point, perhaps even at the very beginning i can’t really explain why 2+2= 4. Without just saying “because it does”.
I think that perhaps is your problem with Nagarjuna’s arguments. And i suppose, also mine. You can’t grasp the fundamental principle that they’re based on. (which is fine, it’s not a failing, it’s a radical idea that is hard to comprehend…some people spend years trying to understand it)
It’s a little like what Dr. Phil says, “you either get it or you don’t.”
Like this for example: “We were definitely not certain whether to think of the “true world” according to Nagarjuna as….”
Nagarjuna would say that there is no true world. Or untrue world. That any thoughts you have about it, are both true and untrue. The thoughts themselves, are equally wrong as they are right.
Anyways, the video itself was interesting. A bit snarky, Nagarjuna came across as a bit of jerk. lol And i do think it’s slightly unfair to use examples like wood burning, to show how he was ignorant about particles. I mean, he lived more than a few years ago…..he didn’t exactly know what an atom was, nor a neutron or a proton. I’m sure if he were around today, he’d be using matter and anti-matter and dark matter as an example. Or perhaps the non-linear nature of time.
Also, the music. It sounds too chinese-ish. Personally i’d like more of an indian flavour.
Anyways, this site is a very good read. It’s a paper all about Nagarjuna if anyone’s interested.
http://bahai-library.com/winters_nagarjuna
Oh and yeah, for sure a lot of what is taken as religious doctorine is totally sufficient for other studies. Though i think, Nagarjuna isn’t at all a religious figure. More of an anti-religious figure who happened to live in a very religious age.
: )
Thanks for the reference! And yes, my point in posting this video is less to say something about Nagarjuna than to say something about how Nagarjuna is influencing/is portrayed in the culture now, including the distortions and cheesiness that come with that.
I’m not sure how to edit. But it’s supposed to say “is NOT totally sufficient”.
Wood and fire, you say?
First, I recommend Jay Garfield’s brilliant translation of “Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of The Middle Way” to help clarify what he has said. In it, Garfield makes several comparisons to Kant and Hume as well as previous translations of Nagarjuna’s work. Garfield explains why he feels his interpretations and translations are more correct (and he makes a solid case every time) and he points out how Nagarjuna’s thinking was superior to Kant and Hume wherever they seem to merge. Of course, Garfield doesn’t say Nagarjuna’s thinking is superior, it just becomes obvious when the two are contrasted very carefully and we can see which distinction, however subtle, makes the most sense.
Also, I would like to share this quote from Tarthang Tulku’s “Openness Mind” that explains on a philosophic level what Nagarjuna is saying here:
“Philosophy is first of all concerned with thoughts and concepts. These thoughts and concepts become refined and then have a direction. This direction comes to a point, which becomes a rule, which becomes a system. This system grows bigger, and gradually an ethical conscience develops—right and wrong, positive and negative, virtue and merit, bad karma—things of that nature. Gradually, then, as philosophy becomes a model, it becomes restricted and tied up with many complex details.
The more questions we ask, the more questions there are. Finally we realize that we do not need to ask questions, for there are no final answers. But if we do not ask the questions to begin with, we may never realize this. In one sense our common knowledge is not useless because it helps us to learn how to give answers…but it also shows us that there is no ending to the questions. It is like rubbing two pieces of wood together. They heat up and finally burn themselves out. Intellectual understanding is like that.
The only way not to give answers is to realize finally that there are no answers. Answering is not the answer. Answering contributes to the questioning, and questioning just repeats the cycle. The questions and answers do not lead anywhere; they feed back into each other.”
—Tarthang Tuklu, “Openness Mind,” p.101
Thanks for the recommendation. I’d be interested in the specific points where you think N.’s account is supposed to work better than Kant’s; the Schopenhauer episode we’re about to post is very much on this same epistemological topic.
I don’t buy the model described in the quote here as a picture of what philosophy necessarily has to be. I too am suspicious of system-builders and prefer individual insights… which, to be accepted, of course, do require thoughts about the framework of acceptance itself, but I don’t think this necessarily has to lead to any kind of total system. You just have to be able to acknowledge the limits of inquiry in a particular circumstances, in the “why” question has to, for practical purposes at least, stop at some point. It doesn’t at all follow from this that we don’t need to ask questions; the purpose of philosophy is not just to show how useless philosophy is. Again, the Schopenhauer reading is right on point here, so I’ll wait a couple of days until that’s available for you and do a separate post elaborating this. Thanks again for participating!