Welcome to the miserable world of PROMETHEUS…

September 22, 2008

!fly a look

Filed under: Eagle, Prometheus — Tags: , , , , , , — prometheuscomic @ 9:32 am

add to del.icio.us :: Digg it :: Stumble It! :: :: post to facebook

Advertisements

11 Comments »

  1. “The doctrine of satkaryavada affirms that the effect inheres in the cause in some way. The effect is thus either a real or apparent modification of the cause.

    The doctrine of asatkaryavada affirms that the effect does not inhere in the cause, but is a new arising.

    Nagarjuna uses a variety of arguments to deny the validity of the cause and effect relationship. More specifically, Nagarjuna denies the existence of any inherently existent cause or inherently existent effect. The causal relationship between conventionally existent causes and effects, however, is not denied.”

    Comment by frogman302 — September 22, 2008 @ 11:51 am

  2. Frogman, at first glance I thought your comment was a spam selling some drug named Nagarjuna!

    Comment by prometheuscomic — September 22, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

  3. Okay, frogman, I think I barely understand your comment…So, if “the causal relationship between conventionally existent causes and effects, however, is not denied,” then what causal relationships does Nagarjuna deny? Specific example, please!

    Comment by prometheuscomic — September 22, 2008 @ 7:56 pm

  4. “For Nāgārjuna, all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally “own-nature” or “self-nature”, and thus without any underlying essence; they are empty of being independent. This is so because they are arisen dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being.

    Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true, commonly called upāya. Nāgārjuna drew on an early version of this doctrine, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms –

    “By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, ‘non-existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, ‘existence’ with reference to the world does not occur to one.” – Nagarjuna “

    Comment by frogman302 — September 22, 2008 @ 8:36 pm

  5. That’s a specific example??

    Comment by prometheuscomic — September 22, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

  6. That’s as specific as you’re gonna get from Nagarjuna!

    Comment by frogman302 — September 22, 2008 @ 9:12 pm

  7. Nagarjuna is a real barrel of laughs…

    Comment by prometheuscomic — September 22, 2008 @ 9:33 pm

  8. I woke up this morning, frogman, still thinking about Nagarjuna: maybe that’s why Garfield minus Garfield is amusing. By removing Garfield and his dialogue the cause/effect flow of the comic is broken, yet it’s still funny.

    Comment by prometheuscomic — September 23, 2008 @ 9:04 am

  9. By de-emphasizing garfield, it magnifies John Arbuckle, and shows him for what he would really be like in reality without a talking cat.

    I’d say the reason it’s so funny is because of it’s painfully realistic portrayal of everyday life for a lonely, semi-schizophrenic man.

    Comment by frogman302 — September 23, 2008 @ 9:34 am

  10. Also, some would say Nagarjuna is a nihilist. But others would say, if you think it’s nihilism you’re missing the point.

    Nagarjuna himself said, there is neither nihilism, which means “nothing exists” in the old way of using it, nor is there eternalism, which means “everything completely exists forever”. But that there is a middle ground between the two which is the truth.

    But what is the word for neither nothing or something?

    Comment by frogman302 — September 23, 2008 @ 9:40 am

  11. Shouldn’t that be “nothing or everything”? (Then the answer would be something)
    I love your analysis of John Arbuckle!

    Comment by prometheuscomic — September 23, 2008 @ 2:48 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: