Which you nevertheless manage not to see, somehow. — Wayfarer

Well, how are they - Nagarjuna's tetralemma & ethics - connected?

OK. I think the point is, that the division of these ideas into different subjects or disciplines or schools of thought is very much a modern development. The whole concern of Buddhism is ethics, but in service of the goal of awakening, under which all of the various disciplines are united and harmonised. One of the formulations is that the Buddhist life is supported by the 'three legs of the tripod' - meditation, wisdom and morality. But from another perspective these are all aspects of the same fundamental unity.

As I tried to explain, the Buddha's refusal to countenance certain kinds of questions, is because they're meaningless in terms of the practicalities of Buddhist discipline. They lead to empty speculation, also known as prapanca, 'conceptual proliferation'.

The other point to understand about Nāgārjuna is that he came along half a millenium after the Buddha. During that time Indian culture was at its peak with great debates between the different schools, various Brahmanic (Hindu) schools, but also Buddhist scholasticism which had grown up around the original Buddhist teaching. So that is what Nāgārjuna is critiquing in his verses - he's responding to various philosophical proposals about the true nature of reality, and so on. So his work is highly recondite - very cryptic, extremely terse, and difficult to interpret, even for scholars. It's also radical, seeking to cut through all of the disputes and conflicting doctrines that have developed both within and around the Buddhism of the day.

Muchas gracias señor!

There's a lot of historical context to philosophies, and Buddhism is no exception, without which it would be nigh impossible to get a handle on 'em. I'm, unfortunately, not well-informed on history and it shows I suppose.

Anyway, I regret to inform you that it isn't clear, still, as to how Nagarjuna's tetralemma is related to ethics. What was, for example, the response from Hindu Brahmins to the tetralemma? From the little that I know, according to some sources, Buddhists lost the debate against the Hindus, thus explaining the decline of Buddhism in India.

Anyway, I regret to inform you that it isn't clear, still, as to how Nagarjuna's tetralemma is related to ethics — Agent Smith

In the 'axial age' philosophies, generally, ethics are not really separable from epistemology.

Buddhists lost the debate against the Hindus, thus explaining the decline of Buddhism in India. — Agent Smith

The Mughal invasion of India was a much greater factor. They slaughtered Buddhist monks, who put up no resistance, in their tens of thousands.

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Benefit of the doubt! That's all I can think of.

Merci beaucoup!

1. p Nyet!
2. ~p Nyet!
3. p & ~p Nyet!
4. ~(p v ~p) Nyet!

The Buddhist Denial = Nyet! — Agent Smith

Not a denial of all propositions, however. The Buddhist Denial as given above asserts the following proposition:

(~1 & ~2 & ~3 & ~4) & ~(~1 & ~2 & ~3 & ~4)

(plus as many logically equivalent nestings of those you choose to make).

It's the statement 'Nyet!' at the end that causes the problem.

The way to deny all propositions is to withhold assent and dissent and to maintain silence or to make a remark or gesture that is wholly unrelated to propositions. If this is done with an inscrutable expression then the effect will be more impressive.

The Buddhist denial is negation + something else i.e. it rejects a claim but doesn't flip the sign of the claim, quite unlike Greek & much of Western thought. Quite a nifty move I'd say. As for silence,

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent. — Wittgenstein

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent — Wittgenstein

The only thing I can say to that is that I have nothing to say to that.

that aphorism is regularly used as a cudgel on this forum.

Interestingly, there’s a Mahāyāna Buddhist sutra called the Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa, a highly recondite text revolving around the enlightenment of a wealthy layman after whom the text is named who is a silk merchant, married, with children, but whose understanding of the subtleties of śūnyatā is so profound that even the Buddha’s closest disciples are afraid to engage him in debate.

In one episode, one of said disciples, Sariputra (the Buddhist disciple who is customarily regarded as the epitome of wisdom) responds to a question with silence. But in this case, Sariputra’s silence is criticised:

Śāriputra abandons speech too quickly, after all. He has been asked a question in a particular context [...] to refuse to speak at such a point is neither an indication of wisdom, nor a means of imparting wisdom, but at best a refusal to make progress [...] Śāriputra's failed silence is but a contrastive prelude to Vimalakīrti's far more articulate silence.

So it may be true ‘of that of which we cannot speak’, but where to draw the line is something that ought to be understood! (And who knew that silence could be so articulate? Simon and Garfunkel, perhaps.)

Silence can mean two things:

1. Ignorance (Sariputra).

2. Ineffable (Siddhartha).

That explains the dismal performance of mysticism and others of its ilk in popularity ratings. Idiot/Sage, indistinguishable!

I have no trouble distinguishing you ;-)

I have no trouble distinguishing you ;-) — Wayfarer

That's beside the point!

that aphorism is regularly used as a cudgel on this forum. — Wayfarer

True, and I had drafted a reply along the lines of "Advice more often given than taken" but I thought it sounded more sour than the kindly @Agent Smith deserved, who I don't think was cudgelling on this occasion......

True, and I had drafted a reply along the lines of "Advice more often given than taken" but I thought it sounded more sour than the kindly Agent Smith deserved, who I don't think was cudgelling on this occasion..... — Cuthbert

Wayfarer was being more playful than mean! That's what I think anyway.

I think it was a general point, yes - it is rather over-used as a vague rebuke generally......

Nagarjuna's tetralemma has to lead us to ethics (re Wayfarer's post). The question is how?

Ethics, is it an end unto itself or is it a means (buys you a ticket to jannat/nirvana/moksha/salvation)?

Remember Aristotles’s dictum: Virtue is its own reward. So pursuing virtue for some other reason subverts virtue.

I don't think ethics can be just a means to an end. Even if I don't get to nirvana, I still have to pay the rent. And if I do ever get to nirvana, I'll still owe the rent (i.e. have various duties, obligations etc)

Yeah, I get that virtue is a reward in itself but all religions, without exception I'd say, peddle virtue as a means to paradise, attaining nirvana, achieving moksha and so on. On the flip side, the highest good, in these very same ideologies again, is to expect no reward for one's good thoughts/words/deeds. Gives me Taoism vibes.

peddle virtue as a means to paradise, — Agent Smith

Nah. That’s just what preachers do. Or have to do.

Nah. That’s just what preachers do. Or have to do. — Wayfarer

And...

We know better.

We know better. — Wayfarer

Please explain.

More Buddhist lore - The Parable of the Burning House

The point? I'm sorry I don't follow.

I get that virtue is a reward in itself but all religions, without exception I'd say, peddle virtue as a means to paradise, attaining nirvana, achieving moksha and so on — Agent Smith

The 'parable of the burning house' is about the fact that the father (Buddha) has to entice the children (sentient beings) from the burning house (regular existence, sickness, old age and death) by enticing them with gifts ('attaining Nirvāṇa'). But when they have escaped from the burning house, then they realise that they had been in terrible danger. So the reward is not dying in the burning house - which is not really a reward at all, except in comparison to the alternative.

The 'parable of the burning house' is about the fact that the father (Buddha) has to entice the children (sentient beings) from the burning house (regular existence, sickness, old age and death) by enticing them with gifts ('attaining Nirvāṇa'). But when they have escaped from the burning house, then they realise that they had been in terrible danger. So the reward is not dying in the burning house - which is not really a reward at all, except in comparison to the alternative. — Wayfarer

So you mean to say that the Buddha "deceives" people into being ethical by dangling the false gift of nirvana before their eyes? Most interesting! Nevertheless, there is a reward, even if only an illusion of one and that brings us back to what I referred to in my posts - ethics as a means to...happiness.

More like he has to appeal to their self-interest but it culminates with the realisation that there is no self whose interests need to be served. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, that is called ‘upaya’, ‘skilful means’ (sometimes paraphrased as ‘holy cunning’, i.e. ‘cunning as serpents, wise as doves’.)

More like he has to appeal to their self-interest but it culminates with the realisation that there is no self whose interests need to be served. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, that is called ‘upaya’, ‘skilful means’ (sometimes paraphrased as ‘holy cunning’, i.e. ‘cunning as serpents, wise as doves’.) — Wayfarer

Holy cunning! :lol: The truth then is not conducive to morality! Merci. Gennaion pseudos. At least the Buddha kept his lies to a minimum and and went the extra mile to make 'em believable. He cared, the bastard!

I was told the middle path doesn't take sides. — Agent Smith

Told by whom??

A cornerstone idea of Buddhism is that all propsitions are undecidable and hence epoché (suspension of judgment)

Where on earth do you get these ideas about Buddhism????