Excellent lecture. Thanks for this. Currently studying the Buddhist tenet systems (Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and the two Madhyamikas) - very helpful
The notion of recognize as a reasoner implies there were two forms of reasons, each of which do not agree with the sense of being a reasoner. This seems to suggest the implicit notion that subjectivity is dependent on some form of scaffold, as in the need to be behind a desk and supported by a referent in the form of points on a white board. A Buddhist logic points to the that which is mostly ephemeral, be that the one who does the inference, which entails that that person is not the inference, but the referent of the institutional gaze.
So, Dr. Tanaka is Schrodinger's cat. And Dr. Tanaka is me, all at the same time, in multiple dimensions, only on Fridays, because on Saturdays i play D&D. = )
With all the respect to Koji, I think there is better explanation by (Vidya-Mitra) take on Dinnaga and Dharmakriti on the the theory of perception debating with Naiyanikas.
you can read Kalam sutta Buddha say never belive anything without prove Cintificlly logiclly we buddhist can.t belive anything unlogic uncintific this is mein point of buddhism
Excellent lecture. Thanks for this. Currently studying the Buddhist tenet systems (Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and the two Madhyamikas) - very helpful
🧐👏👏 समझाने का तरीका अच्छा लगा ।
THANK YOU
The notion of recognize as a reasoner implies there were two forms of reasons, each of which do not agree with the sense of being a reasoner. This seems to suggest the implicit notion that subjectivity is dependent on some form of scaffold, as in the need to be behind a desk and supported by a referent in the form of points on a white board. A Buddhist logic points to the that which is mostly ephemeral, be that the one who does the inference, which entails that that person is not the inference, but the referent of the institutional gaze.
So, Dr. Tanaka is Schrodinger's cat. And Dr. Tanaka is me, all at the same time, in multiple dimensions, only on Fridays, because on Saturdays i play D&D. = )
With all the respect to Koji, I think there is better explanation by (Vidya-Mitra) take on Dinnaga and Dharmakriti on the the theory of perception debating with Naiyanikas.
सेकेंड एग्जांपल समझ नहीं आया। 🧐
Does buddist philosophy recognize any fallaiies?
Yes
Check out catuskoṭi or tetralemma..in early buddhism its usually taken as a fallacy bt later it is used to imply nothingness.
you can read Kalam sutta
Buddha say never belive anything without prove
Cintificlly logiclly
we buddhist can.t belive anything
unlogic uncintific
this is mein point of buddhism
15 minutes in and he continues to just babble 😂
What an odd character! 😆