Buddha's Logic - Theodor Stcherbatsky (1866-1942)

All other historical discussion, ancient or modern, falls here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Buddha's Logic - Theodor Stcherbatsky (1866-1942)

Post by Leucius Charinus » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:04 am

Indo-European Symposium on the reality of the external world and Buddhist Logic.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/Stcherbat ... _logic.htm

  • First conversation - Subject Monism

    1-st Vedantin ... Real at the beginning was the Nought.[1]

    2-nd Vedantin ... Real at the beginning was neither Existence nor the Nought.[2]

    3-rd Vedantin ... Real at the beginning was only Existence, the One-without-a-Second.[3] It was Brahman.

    4-th Vedantin ... The Brahman is identical with our own Self. The «This» art «Thou![4]»

    Parmenides ... There is no Nought.[5] The Universe is the One. It is immovable.

    Democritus ... Immovable is the Nought. It is Empty Space. It is filled by moving atoms.[6]

    The Buddhist ... There is an Empty Space. It contains an infinity of perishable Elements. There is a Nought (Nirvana), when all the perishable Elements have perished.

    Nagarjuna ... All perishable objects are relative and void. Their Nought, or the Great Void,[7] is the only reality. It is the Buddha (in his Cosmical Body).

    Spinoza ... There is only One Substance! It is God (in his Cosmical Body).

    Dignaga ... The Culmination of Wisdom is Monism[8]. This Unity is the Buddha (in his Spiritual Body).

    Dharmaklrti ... The essence of Consciousness is undivided![9] Subject and object is an illusive division. Their unity is Buddha's Omniscience, his Spiritual Body!

    Yogacara Buddhist ... With the only exception of Buddha's knowledge which is free from the division in subject and object, all other knowledge is illusive, since it is constructed as subject and object.[10]




    Second conversation. Subject Dualism and Pluralism

    Sankhya ... There is not one eternal principle, but there are two: Spirit and Matter. Both are eternal, but the first is eternal stability, the other is eternal change. There is no interaction at all possible between them. However the change of the one is somehow reflected, or illumined, in the immovable light of the other. Inside Matter itself, six receptive faculties and six respective kinds of objective Matter are evolved. There is thus a double externality; the one is of the Matter regarding the Spirit. The other is of one kind of matter regarding the other. There is no God!
    Descartes ... All right! There are only two substances, the one extended, the other conscious. But both are eternally changing. There is a God, which is the originator and the controller of their concerted motion!

    The Buddhist (Hinayana) ... There is neither a God, nor an Ego, nor any spiritual, nor materialistic enduring substance. There are only Elements (dharmas), instantaneously flashing and disappearing. And there is a law of Dependent Origination in accord with which the Elements combine in aggregates. Just as in the Sankya there are six receptive faculties and six corresponding objective domains. There is thus here also a double externality. The one is of all Elements regarding one another, the other is of the six objective domains regarding the six receptive faculties.

    Sankhya ... These Elements are infra-atomic units (gunas), they are unconscious and eternally changing.

    Heracleitus ... These Elements are flashes appearing and disappearing in accord with a Law of continual change.

    Democritus ... These Elements are Atoms (material).

    Herbart ... These Elements are Reals (immaterial).

    Mach ... These Elements are nothing but sensations. Both the Ego and Matter are pure mythology. When philosophy is no more interested in the reality of an Ego, nothing remains but the causal laws of Functional Interdependence of sensations, in order to explain the connection of the whole.

    J. St. Mill ... The so-called Substance is nothing but a permanent possibility of sensations. "The notions of Matter and Mind, considered as substances, have been generated in us by the mere order of our sensations». Phenomena are held together not by a substance, but by an eternal law (of Dependent Origination).

    Nagarjuna ... Dependent Origination is alone without beginning, without an end and without change. It is the Absolute. It is Nirvana, the world sub specie aeternitatis.[11]





    Footnotes:

    Conversation 1:

    1. Chandogya, III.19.1; cp. Deussen, Allg. Gesch. d. Phil. I, pp. 145, 199, 202,
    and his Sechzig Upanishads, p. 155. 8
    2. Rgv.10.129.1.
    3. Chandogya, VI. 2, 1-2.
    4. tat tvam asi.
    5. ouk esti me einai.
    6. Cp. H. Cohen, Logik d. r. Erk., p. 70; me on apparently = tadanya =
    = tadviruddha = paryadasa = parihara; ouk on = abhava.
    7. maha-Sunyata = sarva-dharmanam paraspara-apeksata.
    8. prajna-paramita jnanam advayam, sa Tathagatah (cp. my Introd. to the ed. of
    Abhisamayalamkara).
    9. avibhago hi buddhyatma, an often quoted verse of Dharmakirti, cp. SDS., p. 32.
    10. sarvam alambane bhrantam muktva Tathagata-jnanam, iti Yogacara-matena,
    cp.NBTTipp., p. 19.

    Conversation 2:

    11. Cp. my Nirvana, pp. 48.


LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Buddha's Logic - Theodor Stcherbatsky (1866-1942)

Post by Ananda » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:42 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:Indo-European Symposium on the reality of the external world and Buddhist Logic.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/Stcherbat ... _logic.htm

  • First conversation - Subject Monism

    1-st Vedantin ... Real at the beginning was the Nought.[1]

    2-nd Vedantin ... Real at the beginning was neither Existence nor the Nought.[2]

    3-rd Vedantin ... Real at the beginning was only Existence, the One-without-a-Second.[3] It was Brahman.

    4-th Vedantin ... The Brahman is identical with our own Self. The «This» art «Thou![4]»

    Parmenides ... There is no Nought.[5] The Universe is the One. It is immovable.

    Democritus ... Immovable is the Nought. It is Empty Space. It is filled by moving atoms.[6]

    The Buddhist ... There is an Empty Space. It contains an infinity of perishable Elements. There is a Nought (Nirvana), when all the perishable Elements have perished.

    Nagarjuna ... All perishable objects are relative and void. Their Nought, or the Great Void,[7] is the only reality. It is the Buddha (in his Cosmical Body).

    Spinoza ... There is only One Substance! It is God (in his Cosmical Body).

    Dignaga ... The Culmination of Wisdom is Monism[8]. This Unity is the Buddha (in his Spiritual Body).

    Dharmaklrti ... The essence of Consciousness is undivided![9] Subject and object is an illusive division. Their unity is Buddha's Omniscience, his Spiritual Body!

    Yogacara Buddhist ... With the only exception of Buddha's knowledge which is free from the division in subject and object, all other knowledge is illusive, since it is constructed as subject and object.[10]




    Second conversation. Subject Dualism and Pluralism

    Sankhya ... There is not one eternal principle, but there are two: Spirit and Matter. Both are eternal, but the first is eternal stability, the other is eternal change. There is no interaction at all possible between them. However the change of the one is somehow reflected, or illumined, in the immovable light of the other. Inside Matter itself, six receptive faculties and six respective kinds of objective Matter are evolved. There is thus a double externality; the one is of the Matter regarding the Spirit. The other is of one kind of matter regarding the other. There is no God!
    Descartes ... All right! There are only two substances, the one extended, the other conscious. But both are eternally changing. There is a God, which is the originator and the controller of their concerted motion!

    The Buddhist (Hinayana) ... There is neither a God, nor an Ego, nor any spiritual, nor materialistic enduring substance. There are only Elements (dharmas), instantaneously flashing and disappearing. And there is a law of Dependent Origination in accord with which the Elements combine in aggregates. Just as in the Sankya there are six receptive faculties and six corresponding objective domains. There is thus here also a double externality. The one is of all Elements regarding one another, the other is of the six objective domains regarding the six receptive faculties.

    Sankhya ... These Elements are infra-atomic units (gunas), they are unconscious and eternally changing.

    Heracleitus ... These Elements are flashes appearing and disappearing in accord with a Law of continual change.

    Democritus ... These Elements are Atoms (material).

    Herbart ... These Elements are Reals (immaterial).

    Mach ... These Elements are nothing but sensations. Both the Ego and Matter are pure mythology. When philosophy is no more interested in the reality of an Ego, nothing remains but the causal laws of Functional Interdependence of sensations, in order to explain the connection of the whole.

    J. St. Mill ... The so-called Substance is nothing but a permanent possibility of sensations. "The notions of Matter and Mind, considered as substances, have been generated in us by the mere order of our sensations». Phenomena are held together not by a substance, but by an eternal law (of Dependent Origination).

    Nagarjuna ... Dependent Origination is alone without beginning, without an end and without change. It is the Absolute. It is Nirvana, the world sub specie aeternitatis.[11]





    Footnotes:

    Conversation 1:

    1. Chandogya, III.19.1; cp. Deussen, Allg. Gesch. d. Phil. I, pp. 145, 199, 202,
    and his Sechzig Upanishads, p. 155. 8
    2. Rgv.10.129.1.
    3. Chandogya, VI. 2, 1-2.
    4. tat tvam asi.
    5. ouk esti me einai.
    6. Cp. H. Cohen, Logik d. r. Erk., p. 70; me on apparently = tadanya =
    = tadviruddha = paryadasa = parihara; ouk on = abhava.
    7. maha-Sunyata = sarva-dharmanam paraspara-apeksata.
    8. prajna-paramita jnanam advayam, sa Tathagatah (cp. my Introd. to the ed. of
    Abhisamayalamkara).
    9. avibhago hi buddhyatma, an often quoted verse of Dharmakirti, cp. SDS., p. 32.
    10. sarvam alambane bhrantam muktva Tathagata-jnanam, iti Yogacara-matena,
    cp.NBTTipp., p. 19.

    Conversation 2:

    11. Cp. my Nirvana, pp. 48.


LC
"The Buddhist (Hinayana) ... There is neither a God, nor an Ego, nor any spiritual, nor materialistic enduring substance"

There are a lot of misunderstandings of ego, no-self, and not-self in Buddhism not to mention the pernicious "Ego-less" new-age type. The ego is a western concept, however, I think you will get the spirit of the matter in one short sweet sutta. Good Gotoma didn't say there is no self which is interpreted as ego in the west. Moreover, He had many conversions with gods and mara like we all do and never said there is no god.

Nice ice breaker post! A Russian Buddhologist. I had no choice.lol

Everybody takes credit for this saying so I don't know where it came from;
Q).Do you believe in free will?
A).Of course, do I have any choice!
I.______
"Ananda Sutta: To Ananda" (SN 44.10), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?"

See also: other suttas in the Avyakata Samyutta (and the translator's Introduction); AN 4.42.

II.______
"Nagarjuna ... All perishable objects are relative and void. Their Nought, or the Great Void,[7] is the only reality. It is the Buddha (in his Cosmical Body)."

This is troubling as well!

"Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study", selected essays edited by Helmuth von Glasenapp. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el002.html


III.______
"The Buddhist (Hinayana)" Controversy which is peculiar for where are they, so it's all historical. Maybe you could find one or some, I'm not sure.

"One of these schools eventually gave rise to a reform movement that called itself Mahayana (the "Greater Vehicle")[4] and that referred to the other schools disparagingly as Hinayana (the "Lesser Vehicle"). What we call Theravada today is the sole survivor of those early non-Mahayana schools.[5] To avoid the pejorative tone implied by the terms Hinayana and Mahayana, it is common today to use more neutral language to distinguish between these two main branches of Buddhism"

"What is Theravada Buddhism?". Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/theravada.html
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

neilgodfrey
Posts: 2594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Buddha's Logic - Theodor Stcherbatsky (1866-1942)

Post by neilgodfrey » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:52 pm

I've seen the Buddhist hell . . . A lovely theme park at the Wat Phai Rong Wua (Thailand) is designed to scare the daylights out of everyone who enters it.
climb.jpg
climb.jpg (25.3 KiB) Viewed 86 times
stabbing.jpg
stabbing.jpg (22.88 KiB) Viewed 86 times
hellentrance.jpg
hellentrance.jpg (25.05 KiB) Viewed 86 times
That was just a bunch of statues set up to scare people to be good. What was worse was what I saw yesterday were Buddhist monks showing off a real living hell for scores of animals in their "care".... all part of a money-making tourist "attraction". Small pens, no grass, just mud, in small cages. Horrific. So much for Buddhist monks being dedicated to the care of animals.

In a train a monk asks me to sit beside him explaining to me that it is forbidden for him to sit next to a woman, and he fears women entering the carriage will take the vacant seat beside him. A couple of days later I visit a Buddhist temple, removing my shoes in order to enter the sacred precincts, and see that the artwork on its walls allows the monk to meditate on the beauty of bare-breasted women.

It looks to me like the nice shiny face of Buddhism hides the same sorts of sicknesses as the shiny faces of other religions.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest