Philosophers such as Paul Williams and scholars in the Madhyamaka tradition demonstrate that Buddhist ontology (e.g., the two-truths doctrine, dependent origination) makes revisionary claims about causation and mind that are not simply neutral with respect to physicalist science.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Revisionary claims(Buddhist philosophy makes claims that would require us to rethink our understanding of causation and mind)
Arguments that suggest we need to change or rethink our current understanding of something, rather than just confirming what we already believe.
Two-truths doctrine(an example of Buddhist ideas about reality)
A Buddhist teaching that reality can be understood in two different ways: the everyday way we normally see things, and a deeper way that reveals how everything is interconnected and doesn't have independent existence.
causation(Lewis's counterfactual theory of causation)
Event C causes event E if and only if there exists a chain C, D1, …, Dn, E such that each member (except C) is counterfactually dependent on the preceding event; causation is the ancestral of counterfactual dependence
dependent origination(Mahayana Buddhist tradition, distinguished from metaphysical interpretations)
Not a metaphysical concept for grasping reality, but an element of practice expressing the realization of one who enters profound samadhi by cutting off discriminative thought and eradicating afflicting passions.