Buddhism vs. Quine vs. Crowley

Buddhism vs. Quine vs. Crowley

The research intends to compare Buddhism, vs. Quine vs. Crowley by examining some of the philosophy put across by the two Buddhist and other two contemporary philosophers. The research will spell out each philosophy one by one giving each a critical analysis and interpretation. The research intends to start by looking at Vasubandhu's Indian Buddhist Theory to be followed by the other Buddhism philosophy of Nagarjuna known as the philosophy of the middle way of Persons. The third and the fourth section will look at Quine's relativism, and Crowley's idea of crossing the abyss respectively. Lastly after a thorough look at each of the four philosophies the conclusion will give the comparison between each of the philosophy so as to satisfy the objective of the research.

Vasubandhu's Indian Buddhist Theory of Persons

Vasubandhu own contribution is the refutation or proving of the theory of self to be untrue, he did so by putting across his own original Indian Buddhist theory of persons, which (Duerlinger 9)[footnoteRef:2] among other authors view as defense theory of person initially suggested by the schools of Sautrantika and Vaibhasikas. The schools of Sautrantika and Vaibhasikas both believed that persons conceive themselves as illusionary localization of consciousness and that these untrue beliefs, idea, impression are the root cause of rebirth and suffering in human life. Vasubandhu through his theory says "persons can overcome this rebirth and suffering by simply acknowledging that they are not substantially real phenomena. He stems this point from the assumption that persons exist as a collection of substantially real non-permanent skandhas or aggregates. According to (Donath 23-26)[footnoteRef:3] Vasubandhu's theory suggest that these aggregates or skandhas are the phenomena upon which individual's own conception is based upon, and that nothing at all can be conceived on the basis of correct inference or direct perception. [2: Duerlinger 9] [3: Donath 23-26]

The Indian Buddhist theory of person disapproves other theory of persons that have been formulated by other schools, most notably the school of Pudgalavadins. This school suggested that the nature of existence was not part to individuals' own collection of such phenomenal and that illusionary localization of consciousness comprised of five skandhas or aggregates that were separate from the Atman considered to be inexpressible and in the fifth category. The theory claims that people unexplainable conventional realities are conceived depending on the collection of skandhas and that one exists ultimately apart from being conceived as someone without an identity separate from his i.e. one can have two different ideas that they consider to be one.

Vasubandhu while trying to disapprove the school of Pudgalavadins, he spells out a suggestion as to why the Buddha didn't answer the question as to whether people are or are not themselves other than their bodies, and this according to him was because the Buddha kept into consideration of the intention of the questioner. According to Vasubandhu, the intention of the questioner when asking the question was to know Buddha's answer if a soul is present within the body. Another question also in the school was from King Milinda to Nagasena, which Vasubandhu translated to "is an individual the body or is the body and the individual separate things?" Vasubandhu justify his disapproval on the school of Pudgalavadins by concluding that this question could not be answered because the soul itself doesn't exist.

The manner in which Vasubandhu offers disapproval to the school of Pudgalavadins has attracted a lot of critics from other philosophers and authors who include (Duerlinger 9)[footnoteRef:4] and (Bechert, and Gombrich, 89)[footnoteRef:5] whom both argue that Vasubandhu refutation is questionable because it was based on assumption of facts not evidence. Other critics point out that the school of Pudgalavadins didn't have two ideas labeled as self but they were three, therefore Vasubandhu criticism was wrong as it was based on two ideas. Pudgalavadins three ideas comprised of the temporal self, the physical body and the eternal Atman which if combined together could have been termed as "entities without separate identities," which means that both Nagasena and Buddha could interpreted have the questions raised similarly. Vasubandhu without any evidence for assumption interprets what is contrary to this. Alternatively other critics of Vasubandhu are of the opinion that the Buddha could have failed to respond to this question because combination of Atman and temporal self forms 'selves' not one self that's unexplainable. In such a case the question would have appeared as: "are we or not other than our bodies" in the negative and positive. [4: Duerlinger 9] [5: Bechert, and Gombrich, 89]

(Davidson 67-89)[footnoteRef:6] laments further about Vasubandhu criticism by claiming that it's not in record that the Buddha out rightly denied the existence of self, but instead he is quoted as saying "that the self can't be found neither in the skandhas nor apart from them." Buddha himself further talks of five aggregates or skandhas as the burden and acknowledges the carrier of the burden as the person," this point, adds more weight to the idea of temporal self, two non-bodily selves or the Atman or the five skandhas or the bearer of the burden. [6: Davidson 67-89]

Nagasena on the other could have agreed to Pudgalavadins belief that self is not same or different than Nirvana by suggesting that an individual doesn't exist as self that could also mean temporal self doesn't exist. It is from this reason mentioned above that (Duerlinger 9)[footnoteRef:7] and (Donath 23-26)[footnoteRef:8], concludes that Vasubandhu failed to give concrete evidence to prove the assumption he made while refuting the school of Pudgalavadins. [7: Duerlinger 9] [8: Donath 23-26]

Nagarjuna's philosophy of the Middle Way

Nagarjuna's philosophy is based on doctrine of dependence arising, which assumes that each and every pattern and regularity, and each of connection connections of the patterns must be explainable. Each of these explanations given offers further connections and patterns. Thus the doctrine of dependent arising consists of even more and greater articulate patterns of interdependence, but Nagarjuna is quick to point out that this doctrine cannot describe the whole universe as there is no well defined universe to explain.

(David 98-123)[footnoteRef:9] has pointed in his studies that Nagarjuna based his argument on the fact neither the present interdependence that's arising, nor the one already arisen, nor the non-arisen is being arisen, which is well explained by the concept of present moving, the move and the not yet moved. The author further adds on that the doctrine of dependence arises more questions than answers, by asking explanations of explanations to be explained leading to an infinite regression, Nagarjuna also accepts this as challenge as he only tries to explain the patterns of connections. [9: David 98-123]

What Nagarjuna posit as compared to ontological relativism are similar. As he points out that anything dependently co-arisen if its verbally established can only be answered by a further dependent co-arisen, this means there is no absolute truth same as ontological relativism. On the issue of reincarnation of Atman the answer, which is the truth is dependent first of all on the acceptance of Atman, which is also established verbally. To accept something as a dependent arisen therefore is largely dependent on verbal conventions and to acknowledge something as dependent arisen means that it is acknowledged as being referent to a word of which the object or word being referred to is temporal-spatial, indefinite and casual manifold.

Nagarjuna notes that to refer to anything existence as verbal only is to maintain its emptiness i.e. dependent and nominal, in other words such a thing neither has existence nor nonexistence, but only a conventional reality. His philosophy questions assumptions like individuality of persons, belief in selfhood or fixed identity, existence of stable things, the separation between bad and good conduct, the separation between fettered and blessed life and the one-direction and linear movement of causation, he term all this assumptions as being based on the concept of insight of emptiness or the lack of existence.

The middle way philosophy can also be termed as the middle way of emptiness as neither nonexistent nor existent and hence based on this dependently arising are viewed as neither nonexistent or nonempty and as existent and empty. On the other hand dependent origination includes dependently co-arisen being conventionally existent but empty and thus the middle way.

Therefore the present arising, the arisen and the non-arisen do develop existence and ontological truth, this means the non-arisen whom are arising can have nature of existence reality coupled with non-reality emptiness of physical. This in a sense contradicts the regression that's infinite because the nature of existence of infinite regression doesn't commence until we begin it, but if it is arisen ontologically it will generate all the other things this way, which then could be termed as the middle path between Sautranikas opinion of nothing comes out of nothing and the Sautantkas opinion that leads to a regress which is infinite.

Nagarjuna's middle way philosophy also shows the distinction between nirvana and samsara by stating that "the limit of the one is the limit of the other" through the concept of emptiness it suggests that there is no clear difference between attainment of peace and suffering.

This concept of sunyata of dharamas or emptiness in everything has a major influence till to date on the character of thought of Buddhist; it has had a great impact on the model of Indian philosophies of epistemology, substance ontology, causation, concept of ethics, language and the theories of World salvation, and it has also helped in the development of even other Buddhist philosophies in Japan, China, Tibet and India. Important to note is that it's in consent Quine's relativism.

Quine's relativism

The term relativism as used by Quine refer to the belief that truth is not always and generally valid, but can be determined only in relation to other thinks that may include one's personal circumstances, culture, perspective, community, social class, theory or historical period. Quine laments that relativism is unacceptable and has ideas that make it seem absurd. Truth according to him is not relative; when Quine is quoted saying in his writing that when a sentence is true, it doesn't mean that the truth is relative to some theory, perspective or other factors as mentioned above, however (Kuhn 45-67)[footnoteRef:10] points out that Quine's own views concerning truth and the under determination of theories by data has some rather form of relativism in them. [10: Kuhn 45-67]

Relativism has been faulted for having a logical formulation, which makes it more of platform where differently situated individuals may be judged differently, and less than the falsehood that contradictory ideas might each be the truth, and in a sense relativism entails the actual existence of more than one perspective to which varying theories would be true to it. Quine's doctrines that include under determination of theories and immanence of truth both imply that these contradictory ideas as applied by relativism have not so far been proved to be true at all.

Quine's contradicts relativism from the fact that is bases truth in relation to some other things by saying that "there are various defensible ways of conceiving the world." In his under determination theories he uses some plausible form of relativism by claiming that scientifically theories must have certain virtues like scope, consistency, fruitfulness, simplicity, precision among others and these virtues are subject to determination by the behavior and attitude of scientist, which critics' argue that is basing truth of these theories with relation to some virtues a plausible form of relativism.

Another doctrine Quine used was that truth is "immanent," meaning that truth can only be ascribed from within a particular system; he goes on to say that; "it is confusing to acknowledge all the alternative ontology as true in their various ways, the entire envisaged world as real. It is confusion of the truth with evidential support. Truth is imminent and that there is none higher" in this statement he suggests that people should speak from within a theory, which again points to the truth as relative to theory ie. truth can be judged in relation to theory.

Quine's relativism is based on two doctrines; under determination of theories and immanence of truth and they all seem to offer remedies where relativism has been faulted without hindering the objectivity of science. The two doctrines suggest that relativism should first of all acknowledge the difference between truth and belief, secondly it should avoid falsehood that contradictory ideas or theories or views might each be true in their own sense as this has never been a proved fact. Thirdly relativism should be in accordance with basic belief of cognitive relativism that is all truth is relative, and should further de-link truth with realization. Lastly relativism should acknowledge that there are chances or possibility that several theories, which seems incompatible, may be at par with each other or equally warranted.

Crowley's idea of crossing the Abyss

Crowley used the word Abyss to refer to the void or great gulf that exist between the phenomenal universe's its noumenal source and manifestation. Crowley through this idea of crossing the Abyss has put forward across a doctrine that tries to bridge the gap in thought between the actual, unreal, real and the ideal. In this doctrine everything that is in existence lacks the spiritual reality thus they have no substantial meaning at all, and are just insane delusion.

In the Abyss, Crowley urges his audience to apply his experience also known as Shivadarshana, so as to examine problems or challenges that relate to philosophy without applying institution or magic, and that till the mind focuses itself on this challenge or issue at its own accord, after which phenomena that appear disconnected and meaningless, his Ego will then divide into a series of impression that have no relations with one another or with anything else," this prepares someone for a mystical experience. Later in his study he suggest two other methods by which someone can examine philosophical problems, one of them involves discussing openly about subject that could warrant a dreadful punishment, the second involves magic and is primarily based on the theory of Abyss.

Critics of Crowley, who include (Tupman 234)[footnoteRef:11], note that he referred to the process of transcendence in which an individual's personal awareness changes from being based on an individual perspective to an enlightened perspective also called transcendental, after crossing the Abyss. Crowley theory has been based on inexplicable metaphors and symbols, without any clear definition of the relationship between human levels and transcendental. [11: Tupman 234]

Abyss according to Crowley is a path that separates the divine levels from human levels, this path or gap is filled with terror and nullity and anything that goes in this gap is destroyed completely to a complete transformation. Moreover for a magician to obtain the divine level he must enter the path so that his human level can be destroyed completely and upon crossing the other side he becomes a Master in magic. Also while in the process of crossing over one must temporarily turn to be the demon of Abyss.

According to (Putnam 176-212)[footnoteRef:12] there is no such gap as Abyss that Crowley claims exist, he further goes on to say that the human and divine levels are always in any living person, and as such there is nothing to cross over to, ignorance in person could lead to lack of awareness of one's divine level but not the opposite where the divine level is exist separately from a person body. Thus attaining the transcendence level described by Crowley is just a matter of getting to know one's self, which is a natural act. [12: Putnam 176-212]