Jay Garfield: Buddhist objections to idealism

Following the recent debate between Jay & Bernardo Kastrup, (   • Jay Garfield | Bernardo Kastrup: Is consci...  ) I followed up with Jay to better understand his objections to idealism, which are mostly rooted in Buddhist philosophy. You can join the next event in this series life at https://dandelion.events/e/f4awz To join all future events, newsletter and access ad-free event recordings go to: https://adventuresinawareness.com Your contributions support future content, and are greatly appreciated: https://adventuresinawareness.com/mem... One-off PayPal donations: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/adven... Follow the Adventure: Subscribe to us on youtube:    / @adventuresinawareness   Twitter: https://x.com/AdvInAwareness iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2jiebSp... Facebook:   / adventuresinawareness   Banner art by   / jadewade   0:00: Intro: the very different views on reality and how to investigate it 0:01:20 PHILOSOPHY CAN BE TRANSFORMATIVE 0:03:00 ETHICAL OBJECTION TO IDEALISM 9:20 The THREE TYPES OF SUFFERING 14:30 Anything short of dislodging the illusion of autonomy leaves fundamental suffering in place 15:10 Idealism also negates personal self-hood 16:45 YOGACHARA vs ADVAITA vs MADHAYAMAKA 18:20 Advaita =a metaphysical claim about union with brahman 20:30 Yogacara = phenomenological claim we only have access to mind 24:40 Madhayamaka ‘don’t negate too much’ and reduce empathy 25:50 NON DUALITY IN MADHAYAMAKA / PRASANGIKA: Metaphysical vs Phenomenological 28:55 All traditions, if handled with care, can reduce suffering 31:00 METAPHYSICAL OBJECTION TO IDEALISM: EVERYTHING CHANGES 33:40 Universal consciousness can’t have two contradictory qualities - unchangeable, yet manifesting as change 35:00 The Buddhist counter to the waves and water analogy: different moments of water means it isn’t indivisible. 40:20 In yogacara the same analogy is used to indicate how the deep mind isn’t accessible 41:30 classical (1st century) Buddhist logic: true / false / true & false / neither true or false (similar to modern paraconsistent logic 43:35 Medieval buddhist logic from 3rd century does not tolerate contradiction. Medieval logic moves into tibet, paraconsistent logic moves to chan/zen buddhism in china 46:50 Those rejecting advaita claimed that advaita rejects contradiction, so cannot allow universal mind 47:13 Question: The water wave analogy doesn’t seem contradictory, if perceived as discussing two different aspects of the same entity (what it is vs what it does) 48:30 water/wave analogy ignores relational properties: if a thing has different attributes at different times 50:00 The self of a 5 year old can’t be the same as a 50 year old - to have different properties at different times is to change. THE EMPTINESS OF TIME 52:00 Can change be real if time isn’t real? 52:40 Nagarjuna on the emptiness of time: its not independent and prior to events. It is a system of relations between phenomena Existence is the wrong way to think about time - it is a structure of relations 56:00 understanding is both cognitive and somatic and spontaneous 56:30 Philosophers can feed ideas into society to improve it. 1:03:30 Interdependence can evoke forgiveness and equanimity HOW THINGS DEPEND ON IMPUTATION YET EXIST OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1:05:30 EXISTENCE ACCORDING TO BUDDHISM: interdependence of parts, conditions, designation 1:07:50 because conceptual imputation is required, doesn’t mean an entity only exists when being imputed. 1:09:00 What about a chair exists when no one is experiencing it 1:13:20 according to analytic idealism - chemistry and physics are what show up when an experience is measured in a certain way SCIENCE IN BUDDHISM & IDEALISM 1:15:30 Jay believes idealism doesn't support science 1:16:50 AMIR: The regularities of nature captured by science could be the regularities of the mind of nature 1:18:40 a transcendent psychology could explain chairs popping into existence - but would you give up on science? JAY ON THE HARD PROBLEM 1:20:00 Reducibility vs Supervenience 1:24:30 Financial transactions aren’t reducible 1:26:50 Bypassing the Hard Problem: you don’t need two kinds of stuff - all cognitive events are connected to physical events 1:38:40 There aren’t two things - there are physical or psychological descriptions of the same world, taking different perspectives on the same thing 1:43:00 the fact that are data are non continuous doesn’t mean they are data for a thing that isn’t continuous 1:46:30 The rubber hits the road in philosophy in ethics