From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:31:26 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <memo.834816@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
...

>Precisely. IMHO Buddhists have a FAR clearer picture of what is mind, 
>and what is not. 

Really. Mind telling us where you find this clear picture? First of all,
talking about Buddhist philosophy as a unitary whole is pretty
fatuous--Buddhist philosophy is very diverse, and the literature is, shall
we say, extensive. So which school or which Buddhist thinkers are you
referring to?  (You aren't going to cite Alan Watt, surely?)

Furthermore, I would have thought that if there is _one_ thread that runs
through most of Buddhist philosophy, it is the "anatman" principle--the
contention that man has no enduring soul or mind. So you might say that the
Buddhist contribution to the philosophy of mind is to reject questions
about "mind" as nonsense. (A position with which I am fundamentally in
agreement, by the way.) 

>Although I believe that modern philosophers are 
>getting close when they start talking about the all embracing role of 
>language.

Mysterious assertion, that. 
...

>Agreed, but there IS more to it than 'only phrasiology' Buddhism is 
>perhaps the greatest 'thought experiment' that has ever been done. 
>Budhhism is the logical extrapolation of the greek idea that the 
>world could be understood by pure logic. Buddhism tried, and reports 
>back that all is mind :-)

This leaves me wondering where you got your picture of Buddhism. Certainly,
logic was very important for Indian Buddhism--one can't study Buddhism and
ignore thinkers like Nagarjuna, Dignaga or Dharmakirti, though
elsewhere--e.g., China--Buddhism did not develop a strong tradition of
logic scholarship. (You might try reading Stcherbatsky's _Buddhist Logic_
for a thorough grounding on this subject). But how do you imagine that the
study of logic lead any Buddhists to the conclusion that logic helps one
understand the fundamental nataure of the universe, and that "all is mind"?
If there truly is a typical Buddhist answer to a question like, "What is
the fundamental nature of the unverse?", then it is that the universe is
void. (The alternative answer is for the master to deliver a sharp rap to
the side of your head.)

>It should act as a salutary lesson to all scientists who espouse 
>logic over and above experience and experimental data.

>It is not Tagi who is contemplating his navel Mister Cash....

Neither he nor you has yet said anything that leads me to suspect that
either of you knows what he is talking about. Do you, for example, know
_anything_ at all about Buddhism? 



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~