Yes indeed, a lot of it is ridiculously over-complicated and with too much jargon. The Madhayamika did have a principle that their ideas should be expressed in plain language, but the 'plain language' of Sanskrit is still quite advanced, and a lot of Western academics seem to struggle to understand the view they describe.Bristollad wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:01 amNo. I’ve never studied Western philosophy and what little I’ve read seemed of little use
Perhaps if I had studied it, I would think differently. I’ve seen that some draw parallels between negative utilitarianism and Buddhism but I’m too uneducated to have a valid opinion.
The West seems obsessed with the concept of ground, it refuses to accept the the idea that all versions of reality have mythical origins - the Sanskrit/Tibetan response is to establish a kind of pole star by which to navigate, and which means that this lack of ground does not result in us being eternally lost (which is the very thing the West fears, chaos and a sort of 'anything goes' relativism).
So, on that basis, when you say that you are not doing some kind of "ultimate analysis" - this is the very problem the West has right now, and so often one reads the idea that - it's all just empty, therefore nothing can be said... as if there is simply no connection between the understanding of ultimate truth and our daily outlook on life.