tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post8177103525895875631..comments2024-02-06T22:19:13.028-08:00Comments on Mining Aśvaghoṣa's Gold: BUDDHACARITA 4.91: Seeing & Not Seeing Greatness, In Adherence to Objects & In Regard to SelfMike Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-2619883882697030432013-03-03T12:08:26.104-08:002013-03-03T12:08:26.104-08:00Thanks Nigel.
What Soros has investigated is the...Thanks Nigel. <br /><br />What Soros has investigated is the relationship between thinking and reality. <br /><br />Experts in Buddhist pyschology are the type I generally try to steer clear of! <br /><br />Soros claims to believe in harsh reality. I find his arguments very persuasive, so far. He seems to be one who practises what he preaches. <br /><br />But anyway, thanks again. The friendly suggestion is appreciated.<br /><br />Mike Mike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-59425277983098103692013-03-03T11:32:11.827-08:002013-03-03T11:32:11.827-08:00Hi Mike
I am not an expert in philosophy but you m...Hi Mike<br />I am not an expert in philosophy but you may like to take a look at the ideas of The late Francisco Varela in particular his book with Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch 'The Embodied Mind'. They are building bridges between mind as a subjective experience and cognitive science using Buudhist psychology with phenomenology and psychoanalysis. It seems to broaden Soros' reflexivity.<br />Enjoying your posts<br />Nigel RileyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-16667125744421344512013-03-02T04:18:40.416-08:002013-03-02T04:18:40.416-08:00Yes. Philosophical differences are what you're...Yes. Philosophical differences are what you're seeking to clarify, not personal ones. That's what I hear. <br /><br />"In the end, the personal and the philosophical are all entangled. I can't separate the two." I hear that too.<br /><br />Thanks for the further clarifications. Malcolm Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07695792204679760604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-365394299225501632013-03-02T04:00:49.804-08:002013-03-02T04:00:49.804-08:00Thanks Malcolm. Yes I should have glossed māhātmya...Thanks Malcolm. Yes I should have glossed māhātmyaṁ as accusative since I opted to follow EHJ's reading of manye -- which EBC's text also has. But the original Nepalese manuscript has tan-madhye (in the midst of that/there), in which case I suppose māhātmyaṁ would be nominative. <br /><br />The disagreement between Gudo and me was primarily philosophical. If we had let personal and cultural differences be an obstacle, we would never have got as far as we did. <br /><br />From where I sat, Gudo had a bias against thinking.<br /><br />From where Gudo sat, it was not permissible for me to have a view that diverged from his own, in the matter of the relationship between thinking and reality. <br /><br />In the wider scheme of things, what people think about Gudo and me doesn't matter much. It might matter a lot in the kind of Zen where kissig the master's arse in so-called "Sanzen" (and showing him your tits if so requested?) is regarded as the primary thing. <br /><br />But our study of Shobogenzo was not originally like that, at least in the early days. <br /><br />For Gudo, to clarify the relationship between thinking and reality was very vital.<br /><br />In the end, the personal and the philosophical are all entangled. I can't separate the two. <br /><br />On the personal level, there is no chance of a return to near equilibrium, since Gudo is either dead or no longer compos mentis. But the struggle to clarify the philosophical difference goes on....<br /><br />Thanks as always for the feedback.Mike Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712396374023835678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7296606518210633585.post-22764239042889854502013-03-02T03:29:50.640-08:002013-03-02T03:29:50.640-08:00Hi Mike,
Not that it matters much, but isn't ...Hi Mike,<br /><br />Not that it matters much, but isn't māhātmyaṁ the accusative of (na) manye?<br /><br />While I'm here... I've enjoyed reading your longer comments of the last few days.<br /><br />Some might say that your relentless efforts to examine and honestly clarify the history of your relationship with Gudo for self and others - and to relate them to Ashvaghosha's text - are admirable and useful. Others might say that you're going round in circles, firming up a self-serving narrative that may be well wide of the mark.<br /><br />But I'm pretty sure you're aware of such views, and others, and so there's no need for me to bother you with one of my own. Not that I don't have a view...sometimes. Your feelings about your relationship with Gudo and your need to write about them are really none of my business. They do make for a very good read though! Thanks.<br /><br />MalcolmMalcolm Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07695792204679760604noreply@blogger.com