Guest guest Posted January 8, 2002 Report Share Posted January 8, 2002 Dearest Atmachaitanya- We seem to be entering a dialogue about ontology, that fast food dropoff of the ancient mind, especially since the ocean of consciousness brings us incense and car dealers. A theory of ontological commitment is a theory that tells us when we are committed to the existence of certain entities. Why do we want a theory of ontological commitment? Applying such a theory gives us a way to move from sentences commonly accepted as true to more contentious claims regarding what there is in the world. If we can show how to move from a list of true claims to a list of what exists, we can anchor our ontological claims on firm ground. The most familiar theory of ontological commitment is that offered by Quine in his "On what there is" (1948). It may fairly be called the received view of ontological commitment. In effect, it is a combination of a criterion of ontological commitment and an account of that to which the criterion applies. The criterion itself is quite simple. A sentence S is committed to the existence of an entity just in case either (i) there is a name for that entity in the sentence or (ii) the sentence contains, or implies, an existential generalization where that entity is needed to be the value of the bound variable. In other words, one is committed to an entity if one refers to it directly or implies that there is some individual which is that entity. Quine’s account of that to which the criterion applies provides the theory some bite. On his account, a sentence is not, in fact, committed to an entity if there is some acceptable paraphrase of it which avoids commitment to it as per the criterion. The appeal to paraphrase allows us to avoid the problem of Plato’s Beard, or the problem of nonexistent entities to which we nonetheless apparently refer. The names are to be eliminated in such a way that the remaining set of true claims contains none committed to any such entity after the manner of the theory. For example, the name ‘Pegasus’ is eliminated in favor of a verb ‘Pegasize,’ which is understood as the thing one does when one is Pegasus. We can then say that nothing Pegasizes. The received view also makes it easier to deny the existence of universals. Merely using predicates does not commit one to universals or properties, as something of the form "a is F" neither requires one to name a property being F or quantifies over any such thing. This may be counted as an advantage, in that it is not as if any piece of language used must have an entity corresponding to it. If one is committed to universals, it must be by virtue of subscribing to sentences like "Courage is a virtue," which do refer outright to such things. But that too is only a beginning, as you perfectly state in your message to Brian. It brings us back to tinkering with the idea of sitting beside a stream and wondering if it is not there, which is what happens to me on a daily basis, from my throne. This formula still leaves undetermined, however, the issue as to whether creation was a solitary fixed event that set the conditions of the universe for all time or merely the initiation of an ongoing process of renewal and rebirth that takes place at each and every moment. The contribution of Hinduism to the understanding of Creation ex-nihilo is to affirm this latter contention. As man contemplates, in the words of the Gita, "the idea of his own being emerging out of nothingness at each and every moment", it becomes clear that all things are perpetually being re-created anew out of the Divine Nothingness grounding reality. At its root, life is a continuous present-moment, undetermined by that which precedes it and unconcerned with that which follows. In a universe where every instant in time is perceived as completely self-actualizing, concepts that imply extension - such as "process" or "relationship" - really appear to have little relevance. The problem with such a contention is that it flies in the face of human intuition. After all, every man is endowed with the sense of possessing a "past", a progression over time of thoughts, sensations and experience which contribute to an integrated and enduring image of who he is. The "punctuated" view of reality proposed above would appear to shatter the premise of causality that serves as one of our most basic assumptions of experience. Furthermore, how can the depiction of Creation as a process of rectification be reconciled with a view of existence that presumes each moment to be newly generated and altogether disconnected from that which came before? A few thoughts in hopes of your initiation into my pool of love... Hare OM, OM! O. Peshtin --- atmachaitanya108 <stadri wrote: > Dear Brian > > When you say "I accept quite freely that "All is > Brahman",..but it > is 'preposterous' to say the Buddha was not > enlightened", I > respectfully submit that there is a fundamental > misconception about > the teachings of the Buddha, and the teachings of > Advaita Vedanta. > > In order to clarify my assertion, please allow me > to present a brief > introduction into 'Buddha Dharma 101': > > The teachings of Lord Buddha were not written > down until at least > 150-200 years ofter his death. The first formulation > of his doctrine > was that of Hinayana Buddhism (which consisted of > two subdivisions > Sarvasti Vadins and Sautantrika) It was a realistic > doctrine which > rejected the reality of a true Self, but accepted > the reality of > 'Ultimate Existents'. In about 100 AD.Nargarguna > rejected not only the > reality of a true Self but also the reality of > 'Ultimate Existents' > and proclaimed the 'Emptiness' of all phenomena, > both Self and > Non-Self,ie; everything is 'Empty of Inherent > Existence'. This was the > begining of Mahayana Buddhism. In the fourth century > Asanga and > Vasubanda rejected Nargarjunas' Sunya Vada, and put > forth the doctrine > that everything is the Mind alone (Chittamatra). The > Mind is > continuous and momentary (Santani Kshnika Vijnana > Vada). These are the > three main schools of Buddhism that were existing at > the time of > Shankara.(I might add that in the 9th century a new > school of Buddhism > made it appearence known as 'Dzog Chen', which held > that the Absolute > reality was Pure Intrinsic Awareness, but unlike the > Advaitins , they > said that this Intrinsic awareness was "Dynamic", > and its very nature > was to be constantly changeing.) > > Shankara has examined these three main > schools of Buddhism > and refuted them in his Sutra Bhasya. If you agree > with his refutation > then you are an 'Advaitin, "All is Brahman alone", > and the > Buddha,which ever school he actually upheld, was not > an'enlightened' > sage. > If you think that the Buddha did teach that > "All is Brahman", or > that any school of Buddhism, or any writer on > Buddhism, held such a > view, then I kindly ask you to provide me one shred > of evidence > supporting that fact. No Buddhist ever put forth the > view that your > true Self is Brahman and that Brahman is the > Non-Dual Reality. That > teaching is only found in the Upanishads.(The > Asadarna Dharma-The > Unique teaching of Vedanta). > > Hari Om > Atmachaitanya > advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> > wrote: > > | Dear Brian: > > | > > | After a careful reading of your posting, I find > strong evidence > that > > | you have serious doubts about Shankara's > Advaita Vedanta > > | Philosophy. > > > > Not so. I accept quite freely that "All is > Brahman". I am an > initiate in the Holy Tradition of which Shankara is > a key persona. > > > > I don't understand the way some people interpret > it - especially if > they say such (to me) preposterous things as, "This > is the only way", > or that Christ or Buddha weren't enlightened. > > > > I have serious doubts about some propositions > from, for example, > Atmachaitanya which apparently reject transcendental > experience as > valid or necessary in expanding our awareness. > > > > Sri Shankaracharya was revered as an unmatched > master of philosophy > and debate who was able to win over the whole of the > sub-continent to > his view. > > > > Is it too much to expect his strongest adherents > to be able to > express some of these arguments? Is that not one of > the purposes of > this forum? > > > > Brian > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Send FREE video emails in Mail! http://promo./videomail/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.