I just reached page 115 on your book which floored me a bit because of all the words I had to find, at the same time as this post on Nishida Kitaro. The Catuskofi that focuses on the four corners of Buddhist philosophy...I also came across it in sanscrit, then read about Graham Priest with a fifth way, although I was unable to find that fifth corner. I liked Yamauchi's interpretatiojn of the four types of animal love. I wondered about Nishida Kitaro's thoughts on a non-dualistic world and the concept of nothingness. Curiously, in the qabbalistic tree, there are three sephora outside of the Tree of Life..(Four trees) and Ain is nothing and out of nothing come ain soph limitless nothing and from that comes ain soph aur, limitless light. I also liked his words at 26 years old: The bottom of my soul has such depth; Neither joy nor the waves of sorrow can reach it.
That is a good question. My personal position is that there is not, but I am not sure that it can be proven. I have discussed the idea of absolute nothingness in a paper that will be published in a French philosophical journal in June. I was the editor of that issue of the journal and will present it here in due time...
In my 2 of Swords I approached it with the three gunas: Tamo and Rajo being the outward creation as duality illusion, and Sattva as the inner creation of Divine Truth, the hidden secret. Just part of the Vedic work. Asi was the primordial source of energy behind all weapons to destroy the enemies of Truth to restore Dharma. A play on words I know but it has its own philosophy that helps me understand much of what you say and write.
Thank you for reading me. Graham Priest has proposed an interpretation of Nāgārjuna's tetralemma according to which we should distinguish between a semantic tetralemma and an ontological tetralemma. For him, the latter leads to a fifth proposition corresponding to the ineffability of some object of knowledge. I don't think his distinction between two tetralemmas is correct with respect to Nāgārjuna's tetralemma, but it is an interesting philosophical move.
Thank you for introducing Nishida Kitaro ***
This is a very brief introduction. Nishida's work was in itself a historical event in modern Japanese philosophy.
I just reached page 115 on your book which floored me a bit because of all the words I had to find, at the same time as this post on Nishida Kitaro. The Catuskofi that focuses on the four corners of Buddhist philosophy...I also came across it in sanscrit, then read about Graham Priest with a fifth way, although I was unable to find that fifth corner. I liked Yamauchi's interpretatiojn of the four types of animal love. I wondered about Nishida Kitaro's thoughts on a non-dualistic world and the concept of nothingness. Curiously, in the qabbalistic tree, there are three sephora outside of the Tree of Life..(Four trees) and Ain is nothing and out of nothing come ain soph limitless nothing and from that comes ain soph aur, limitless light. I also liked his words at 26 years old: The bottom of my soul has such depth; Neither joy nor the waves of sorrow can reach it.
In the last chapter, I had made some comments about absolute nothingness, including in Nishida's philosophy.
wondering if there is an absolute anything, even nothingness?
Eventually I will get to the last chapter!
Thank you!
That is a good question. My personal position is that there is not, but I am not sure that it can be proven. I have discussed the idea of absolute nothingness in a paper that will be published in a French philosophical journal in June. I was the editor of that issue of the journal and will present it here in due time...
I will obviously be translating again in June!
In my 2 of Swords I approached it with the three gunas: Tamo and Rajo being the outward creation as duality illusion, and Sattva as the inner creation of Divine Truth, the hidden secret. Just part of the Vedic work. Asi was the primordial source of energy behind all weapons to destroy the enemies of Truth to restore Dharma. A play on words I know but it has its own philosophy that helps me understand much of what you say and write.
Thank you for reading me. Graham Priest has proposed an interpretation of Nāgārjuna's tetralemma according to which we should distinguish between a semantic tetralemma and an ontological tetralemma. For him, the latter leads to a fifth proposition corresponding to the ineffability of some object of knowledge. I don't think his distinction between two tetralemmas is correct with respect to Nāgārjuna's tetralemma, but it is an interesting philosophical move.