Phillip and Paul,
I think the concept that Nagarjuna's verse refers has been translated as
"dependent origination," in which causation is the result of relations or
correlations rather than the various Aristotelian forms of causation
(material, efficient, formal, and other other that I can't remember).
Essentially there is no agent-action distinction in dependent origination,
and agency is vested in the relation as it develops. Thus persons and
social organizations bring each other forth. This does have some
interesting implications for what might be appropriate units of analysis...
--King
>Phillip,
>
>Your selection of the Buddha's verses to Vasettha brought to mind Nargjuna's
>section on "Agent and Action" which you might find of interest, if you don't
>know it already. I think the point of the buddhist teaching on this being
>that neither agent or action cannot be understood separately. Consider:
>
> "Action depends upon the agent.
> The agent itself depends on the action.
> One cannot see any way
> To establish them differently.
>
> "From this elimination of agent and action,
> One should elucidate appropriation in the same way.
> Through action and agent
> All remaining things should be understood."
>
> - Mulamadyamakakarika, Ch. 8, 12-13.
>
>My personal interest here being the self-annihilating dialectic of the
>buddhist teaching (dialectic of sunyata/emptiness) vs. the
>self-transcending/self-anihilating dialectic of the Hegelian tradition
>(aufhebung). Perhaps found in the contrasted understanding of sangha v.
>community/society??
>
>Paul H. Dillon
________________________________________________________________________________
King Beach
Transitions Research Group Office: 441 Erickson Hall
Program in Educational Psychology Voice: 517-355-6684
College of Education Fax: 517-353-6393
Michigan State University Email: kdbeach@msu.edu
East Lansing, Michigan 48824 USA Web: www.msu.edu/user/kdbeach/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:37 PDT