Interesting! Thanks for sharing your map of the Kinfonet landscape. I shall look for the bifurcation.
None of the Krishnamurti forums I hung out in had much moderation, but both could have imo benefitted from it. I get the theory of “They’re adults, let them work it out on their own.” And I agree with it! But as with online meetings, without some judicious facilitation the conversation is apt to devolve.
Here’s a question fer ya: Given the almost complete absence of moderation here, does each of us have the responsibility to help moderate the forum? If so, what would this mean?
The moderators do step in where there is a clear breach of trust - as when there is personal abuse, constant spamming, or outright propaganda for some sectarian view - but in general there is a certain leeway for participants to resolve things between them amicably, as adults (which I take to be a good thing).
However, when all attempts at amicable resolution fail, it seems inevitable that these silos of affinity begin to appear. It is, of course, up to each of us to make sure that these silos remain porous, and that we do not unnecessarily reify them (as absolutely fixed assumptions). But one ought not deny the evidence in front of one’s eyes (if that is what one sees - and you may not).
Well, beyond maintaining an attitude of goodwill, friendliness and such - and moderating (where possible) one’s own reactivity - it probably means that we need (as was mentioned) some go-betweens (go-betweeners?), who feel that they can see both ‘sides’ of the issue, and who can act as intermediaries where they are able to. - Maybe you might be such a go-betweener? (although the go-betweener needs to be genuine, and not partial to one ‘side’ or the other…).
If I run into a posting I find dogmatic or delusional, I generally skip it. That might explain why I’m not in touch with the fault lines you mention.
I don’t think I qualify, since Krishnamurti is loaded for me, lots of triggers. But I’d be happy to help figure out a way for members to moderate the forum on their own.
Yes - from what I’ve read of you, you are definitely on the liberal-skeptical end of the spectrum! (and so wouldn’t be a fair go-betweener). I didn’t want to say it as I thought you might think me presumptuous. However, please feel free to make constructive suggestions where you see fit - you probably see things that others (like myself) don’t.
Roger that. I do “neti neti” with Krishnamurti (and most everything else): “Not this, not that.” I torch the false figuring whatever ends up standing has a chance of being true. (And, yes, I’m aware of the risks in doing this, the main being: How can I know what is false and torch-worthy?)
In relation to this, you must have heard of Nagarjuna’s ‘neti neti’ approach, haven’t you?
Nagarjuna applied a deconstructive dialectic (in India it is called catuskoti, or tetralemma; a four-sided argumentative tool of analysis) - to everything, literally everything.
He reasoned that by negating every koti or lemma of this four-fold scheme - for example, “existence”, “non-existence”, “both-existence-and-non-existence”, and “neither-existence-nor-non-existence” - all dualistic views can be left behind. Because every view is negated in this way, ultimate reality is understood by some Madhyamaka Buddhists to be completely nonconceptual, ineffable.
That is, the purpose of Nagarjuna’s catuskoti seems to have been to compel thought beyond any possible conceptual conclusion, and towards a resolution instead discoverable only in (implicitly) nonconceptual experience (or insight, prajna).
So the correct resolution of the catuskoti turns out not to be a literal “middle” or average of the alternatives; rather it is a ‘transcendental position that is no position’ - much like your ‘position’ perhaps?
I will admit to a bit of an obsession with Nagarjuna, ja. What’s not to love about the author of a treatise that, in its opening ‘verse,’ (kinda sorta) burns all avenues of causality down to the ground? Are you familiar with the MMK? (Whose translation/commentary?)
My neti neti schtick emerged from engagement with Advaita. No big wonder that a demi-nihilist would embrace neti neti, right?
Yes - MMK (aka the Mulamadhyamakakarika - ‘Root Verses on the Middle Way’)!
The translation I have is by Mark Siderits and Shoryu Katsura (which is a little less partisan than the popular one by Garfield). My own understanding of the MMK is very much along the lines sketched out by Gorampa (see Gorampa [go rams pa] (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)), rather than the usual mainstream Gelukpa view of Buddhists like Tsongkhapa (the interpretation popular with followers of the Dalai Lama).
Although it is currently out of academic fashion, I am very sympathetic to the ‘Gorampian’ approach of TRV Murti (whose The Central Philosophy of Buddhism I read at university), who interprets Nagarjuna along transcendental or Kantian lines.
At university we also briefly studied Gaudapada’s approach to Vedanta, which was heavily influenced by Mahayana Buddhism (including Madyamaka) and which consequently influenced Sankara’s Advaita philosophy. So there is a lot of overlap between the two approaches.
In Tibetan Buddhism there are a bunch of different ways of interpreting Nagarjuna’s philosophy (which correlate more or less with which school Tibetans belong to). The politically dominant school - the Gelukpa sect (popularised by the Dalai Lama) - actively repressed alternative interpretations of Nagarjuna from the 17th CE onwards, favouring Tsongkhapa’s view.
Tsongkhapa interprets Nagarjuna as asserting that only conventional reality exists (meaning that there is no ultimate reality). However, this conventional (or provisional) existence of the world depends upon the introduction of a hermeneutical device (called “parameterisation”) into Nagarjuna’s thinking which Nagarjuna himself did not formulate.
This “parameterisation” hermeneutic was introduced (by Tsongkhapa) to distinguish between parts of the catuskoti that are to be interpreted “ultimately”, and other parts that are to be understood merely “conventionally”. This allows Gelukpas to construe Nagarjuna as ultimately rejecting phenomenal appearances while still maintaining them (conventionally) at the conventional level.
So, for example, “existence” (the first of the four koti) is negated “ultimately”; while the second koti - which in this case would be “non-existence” - is negated only “conventionally”. Therefore (according to this approach) while existence is denied “ultimately”, non-existence is only denied “conventionally” - and so continues to exist conventionally.
But Gorampa argued - very reasonably as far as I can see - that this is a wholly artificial and extra-textual hermeneutic which has been imposed on Nagarjuna’s text. It makes Tsongkhapa (and other Gelukpas) defend a self-contradiction: what exists (i.e. “conventional reality”), has no (ultimate) existence. But then how does a surface appearance “appear” without a (real) ground of which it is merely the surface? - Most unsatisfactory (as far as logic goes)!
So even though Gorampa’s interpretation was suppressed (for mostly political reasons), I still think it is the most logical. Gorampa simply argued that we should just read Nagarujuna’s statements as they present themselves, literally (so no hermeneutical hocus-pocus, aka “parameterisation”). For Gorampa one must negate all the kotis (lemmas) equally, not give one or other of them preferential treatment. The result being that every view is negated in this way, and so - as mentioned above - ultimate reality is understood as being completely nonconceptual and ineffable. As Nagarjuna puts it:
I salute Gautama, who… taught the true Dharma for the abandonment of [all] views (MMK 27, 30)
does each of us have the responsibility to help moderate the forum? If so, what would this mean?
The bifurcation you haven’t noticed is the divide between those who parrot and emulate Krishnamurti and those who don’t pretend to have complete comprehension of the teaching.
I’m so used to this after ~20 years in Krishnamurti forums that I don’t even notice anymore! It’s a given. I work around it, engaging with what resonates and ignoring what doesn’t. If you see pretty much everything anyone says/thinks/feels as a story, as I do, it kind of evens out the bumps.
Don’t insult the word “story”. The self-deception displayed in this forum is just pathology. If you can put up with it, good for you, but bad for those who find it demoralizing and depressing.
Is that why HHtDL and other Gelugpas say things like: “It’s not that things don’t exist, they do, it’s just that we (non-enlightened beings) do not understand how they exist.”
Similar questions arise often in Advaita. Maya is usually used as a Get Out of Jail Free Card, but it’s not a wholly satisfying solution.
Don’t leave me in the dark … how do the Gelugpas answer that question, defend their view?
Well - just as I said, through an artificial hermeneutical device called parameterisation, just described.
This is why Gelukpas find it difficult to embrace Nagarjuna’s claim that he truly had “no thesis” (no view) - i.e., including the ‘view’ that all things are empty. Instead Gelukpas are forced to narrow down their use of the term ‘view’ to account only for affirmative statements about existence (and not their negations, such as ‘emptiness’ or non-existence - which are not regarded by Gelukpas as ‘views’).
From Gorampa’s perspective, however, emptiness truly understood is not a ‘view’ exactly, but rather the suspension of all views (including the ‘view’ of emptiness or non-existence). Which makes better sense of Nagarjuna’s claim that
Emptiness is taught by the conquerors as the expedient to get rid of all [metaphysical] views (MMK 13.8)
and
Liberation is attained through the destruction of… falsifying conceptualisations [arising] from hypostatisation; but hypostatisation is extinguished in emptiness (MMK 18, 5)
(and so wouldn’t be a fair go-betweener). I didn’t want to say it as I thought you might think me presumptuous. However, please feel free to make constructive suggestions where you see fit - you probably see things that others (like myself) don’t.
What’s not to love about the author of a treatise that, in its opening ‘verse,’ (kinda sorta) burns all avenues of causality down to the ground? Are you familiar with the MMK? (Whose translation/commentary?)
