<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: One and a half noble truths?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/</link>
	<description>Philosophy through multiple traditions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:23:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Bagely</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-453</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted Bagely</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-453</guid>
		<description>Lacan reads Kant without(lacking)(avec) Sade. Or, maybe, the other side of Sade? One hand clapping in the Zen sense, or Madyamaka.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lacan reads Kant without(lacking)(avec) Sade. Or, maybe, the other side of Sade? One hand clapping in the Zen sense, or Madyamaka.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amod Lele</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-451</link>
		<dc:creator>Amod Lele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-451</guid>
		<description>What&#039;s the thesis of the piece, especially with respect to Sade? Does Sade have a theory of regulative ideals (or does Lacan argue that he does)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the thesis of the piece, especially with respect to Sade? Does Sade have a theory of regulative ideals (or does Lacan argue that he does)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ted Bage</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-450</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted Bage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:32:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-450</guid>
		<description>I think one essay worth reading for bringing together Kant and Buddhism is Lacan&#039;s, &quot;Kant avec Sade&quot;, found in Finks translation of Lacan&#039;s Ecrits, since the subject of regulative ideals is coming up. Is Kant foreshadowing the ego ideal/ ideal ego split in regards to following the law?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think one essay worth reading for bringing together Kant and Buddhism is Lacan&#8217;s, &#8220;Kant avec Sade&#8221;, found in Finks translation of Lacan&#8217;s Ecrits, since the subject of regulative ideals is coming up. Is Kant foreshadowing the ego ideal/ ideal ego split in regards to following the law?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amod Lele</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-448</link>
		<dc:creator>Amod Lele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:38:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-448</guid>
		<description>I think I&#039;ve said to you before that I think the regulative-ideal stuff is a very promising place to bring together Kant and Buddhism. It very likely should find a place in your diss.

Interesting to mention Ricard in this context. Is that heightened left prefrontal cortex activity a sign of awakening? Tricky, because awakening should presumably involve truth as well as happiness, and sometimes we can be a lot happier by deluding ourselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I&#8217;ve said to you before that I think the regulative-ideal stuff is a very promising place to bring together Kant and Buddhism. It very likely should find a place in your diss.</p>
<p>Interesting to mention Ricard in this context. Is that heightened left prefrontal cortex activity a sign of awakening? Tricky, because awakening should presumably involve truth as well as happiness, and sometimes we can be a lot happier by deluding ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Whitaker</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-447</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Whitaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-447</guid>
		<description>Wow - thanks, Amod. I didn&#039;t realize I could be even more Kantian! This is great though; I honestly can&#039;t remember ever thinking of the 3rd NT quite like that. This sounds like it should find its way into my thesis... 

But when you put it like that... I almost want to say it&#039;s perhaps NOT needed as a regulative ideal in the way Kant needed his 3. If we could boil down karma to psychology or virtue as you mentioned Dale Write did a few years ago, combined with hard empirical data such as the studies done on Matthieu Ricard, then perhaps you&#039;d have all you need... 

Looking forward to your further thoughts, and thanks again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow &#8211; thanks, Amod. I didn&#8217;t realize I could be even more Kantian! This is great though; I honestly can&#8217;t remember ever thinking of the 3rd NT quite like that. This sounds like it should find its way into my thesis&#8230; </p>
<p>But when you put it like that&#8230; I almost want to say it&#8217;s perhaps NOT needed as a regulative ideal in the way Kant needed his 3. If we could boil down karma to psychology or virtue as you mentioned Dale Write did a few years ago, combined with hard empirical data such as the studies done on Matthieu Ricard, then perhaps you&#8217;d have all you need&#8230; </p>
<p>Looking forward to your further thoughts, and thanks again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amod Lele</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-444</link>
		<dc:creator>Amod Lele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-444</guid>
		<description>Justin, this is a great reply - dude, it actually makes you a lot &lt;i&gt;more&lt;/i&gt; Kantian! He always says that the existence of free will, God and the afterlife are things it is impossible to know one way or the other (not just practically speaking, but on principle). But in order to make sense of our own actions, we need to assume the existence of all these three things, as a &quot;regulative ideal.&quot; We couldn&#039;t do that if we knew they &lt;i&gt;didn&#039;t&lt;/i&gt; exist; but because we can&#039;t know one way or another, we must assume that they do.

And it seems you&#039;re taking the Third Noble Truth in something very close to that way, as a regulative ideal. (I believe &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ethics/about/rongreencv.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ronald Green&lt;/a&gt; tried to treat karma-rebirth as a regulative ideal in &lt;i&gt;Religious Reason&lt;/i&gt;, and possibly his later work too.) We cannot know that there is an end to suffering, but we must assume that there is. This is particularly important in light of the recent discussions here about certain knowledge: how could we ever know for sure whether someone else was fully awakened? How could we even know for sure whether &lt;i&gt;we&lt;/i&gt; were? But there&#039;s a lot of appeal to saying &quot;we need to assume it&#039;s possible anyway.&quot; I need to think about this some more...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Justin, this is a great reply &#8211; dude, it actually makes you a lot <i>more</i> Kantian! He always says that the existence of free will, God and the afterlife are things it is impossible to know one way or the other (not just practically speaking, but on principle). But in order to make sense of our own actions, we need to assume the existence of all these three things, as a &#8220;regulative ideal.&#8221; We couldn&#8217;t do that if we knew they <i>didn&#8217;t</i> exist; but because we can&#8217;t know one way or another, we must assume that they do.</p>
<p>And it seems you&#8217;re taking the Third Noble Truth in something very close to that way, as a regulative ideal. (I believe <a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ethics/about/rongreencv.html" rel="nofollow">Ronald Green</a> tried to treat karma-rebirth as a regulative ideal in <i>Religious Reason</i>, and possibly his later work too.) We cannot know that there is an end to suffering, but we must assume that there is. This is particularly important in light of the recent discussions here about certain knowledge: how could we ever know for sure whether someone else was fully awakened? How could we even know for sure whether <i>we</i> were? But there&#8217;s a lot of appeal to saying &#8220;we need to assume it&#8217;s possible anyway.&#8221; I need to think about this some more&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Whitaker</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-443</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Whitaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-443</guid>
		<description>Oh, and thank you Michael for the James link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and thank you Michael for the James link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Whitaker</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-441</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Whitaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-441</guid>
		<description>Hi Amod - I&#039;m working on a response to your latest post, but it&#039;s feeling &#039;rambly&#039;...  Your point here on lying to ourselves or others helps narrow things a bit. Thanks. 

Lying itself cannot be helpful in either case. I&#039;m pretty Kantian in that regard. But something like &quot;reasonable acceptance of truths we as yet do not know to be true&quot; does seem justified in terms of motivation or other expedient means. Telling a group of alcoholics &quot;you *can* be free of alcohol&quot; even if you know that, statistically, this is only a half-truth seems acceptable. If challenged, hiding those statistics or lying about them would be wrong though. 

For me the 1st &amp; 2nd NTs are convincing. I do cling and crave and see this as the source of my subtler suffering (gross suffering, dukkha-dukkha, even the Buddha still had to deal with) in times of change and it is reasonable to me that, yes, even my moments of joy are &#039;tinged&#039; a bit by knowing they will fade. But practicing the path does ease the clinging/craving and thus the dukkha, so I have reasonable confidence that more practice will do even more. The 3rd NT I have no idea about personally. It sounds good though as a potential extension of the effects I&#039;ve experienced already. And the tradition claims it&#039;s true, so while I won&#039;t beat my fists and demand anyone&#039;s belief in it, I&#039;ll go with it as a reasonable possibility.

Well, that still got long-winded. Oh well :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Amod &#8211; I&#8217;m working on a response to your latest post, but it&#8217;s feeling &#8216;rambly&#8217;&#8230;  Your point here on lying to ourselves or others helps narrow things a bit. Thanks. </p>
<p>Lying itself cannot be helpful in either case. I&#8217;m pretty Kantian in that regard. But something like &#8220;reasonable acceptance of truths we as yet do not know to be true&#8221; does seem justified in terms of motivation or other expedient means. Telling a group of alcoholics &#8220;you *can* be free of alcohol&#8221; even if you know that, statistically, this is only a half-truth seems acceptable. If challenged, hiding those statistics or lying about them would be wrong though. </p>
<p>For me the 1st &amp; 2nd NTs are convincing. I do cling and crave and see this as the source of my subtler suffering (gross suffering, dukkha-dukkha, even the Buddha still had to deal with) in times of change and it is reasonable to me that, yes, even my moments of joy are &#8216;tinged&#8217; a bit by knowing they will fade. But practicing the path does ease the clinging/craving and thus the dukkha, so I have reasonable confidence that more practice will do even more. The 3rd NT I have no idea about personally. It sounds good though as a potential extension of the effects I&#8217;ve experienced already. And the tradition claims it&#8217;s true, so while I won&#8217;t beat my fists and demand anyone&#8217;s belief in it, I&#8217;ll go with it as a reasonable possibility.</p>
<p>Well, that still got long-winded. Oh well :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amod Lele</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-440</link>
		<dc:creator>Amod Lele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-440</guid>
		<description>Oh, and I don&#039;t mind the rudeness on your blog. I understand that&#039;s part of the point. I generally try to avoid swearing on the blog, and to avoid speaking on this blog in terms like you do  in &lt;a href=&quot;http://buddhareform.blogspot.com/2009/09/phd-zombie-land.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;your recent post&lt;/a&gt; (which I presume is the one you&#039;re referring to here), because I want the blog to be open and welcoming to readers of a conservative or sensitive bent. But I have no problem with you doing it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and I don&#8217;t mind the rudeness on your blog. I understand that&#8217;s part of the point. I generally try to avoid swearing on the blog, and to avoid speaking on this blog in terms like you do  in <a href="http://buddhareform.blogspot.com/2009/09/phd-zombie-land.html" rel="nofollow">your recent post</a> (which I presume is the one you&#8217;re referring to here), because I want the blog to be open and welcoming to readers of a conservative or sensitive bent. But I have no problem with you doing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amod Lele</title>
		<link>http://loveofallwisdom.com/2009/09/one-and-a-half-noble-truths/comment-page-1/#comment-438</link>
		<dc:creator>Amod Lele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://loveofallwisdom.com/?p=539#comment-438</guid>
		<description>Well, &quot;unsatisfactoriness&quot; is typically suggested as a translation for exactly the reason you identify: that it has to do with our condition of not being satisfied. So that &lt;i&gt;sabbam dukkham&lt;/i&gt; can be rendered as &quot;all is unsatisfactory,&quot; as a way of catching those additional connotations beyond &quot;suffering.&quot; That&#039;s what I was talking about in response to Lorem Ipsum. If you don&#039;t like &quot;suffering&quot; or &quot;unsatisfactory,&quot; how would you translate &lt;i&gt;dukkha&lt;/i&gt;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, &#8220;unsatisfactoriness&#8221; is typically suggested as a translation for exactly the reason you identify: that it has to do with our condition of not being satisfied. So that <i>sabbam dukkham</i> can be rendered as &#8220;all is unsatisfactory,&#8221; as a way of catching those additional connotations beyond &#8220;suffering.&#8221; That&#8217;s what I was talking about in response to Lorem Ipsum. If you don&#8217;t like &#8220;suffering&#8221; or &#8220;unsatisfactory,&#8221; how would you translate <i>dukkha</i>?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

