Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:24 pm
PeterC wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:27 am He also wasn't really a nihilist, the first few sections of Zarathustra make that very clear, he found meaning in the transformation of the individual, but he rejected finding meaning in the collective.
He was definitely a nihilist. His argument that the superior man was not obligated by the moral constraints imposed upon rest of us is a nihilism of narcissistic vanity.

He would be thrilled with the interpretation that some Vajrayāna wannabes promote that there are superior humans who may transgress the moral restrictions imposed on the herd because of their spiritual accomplishments.
I can't believe I'm here defending Nietzsche, but there's no way he's espousing nihilism. Nihilism is his diagnosis of a European culture which was deeply religious, but then a few clicks past Luther, had veered into a nihilistic vortex shaped by the lack of genuine belief in Christianity coupled with the absence of real meaning in the scientific enterprise. It is the cultural disease that one needs to cure oneself from.

His ethics is really a modernist reformulation of the virtues tradition of ancient Greece - remembering that he was actually trained as a philologist.i.e. the ubermensche actually has to forge particular virtues, something that modern hedonistic libertarian Nietszcheans seem to ignore.

So, it is reactionary and it is aristocratic. But not nihilistic.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:53 am
tobes wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 11:08 pmThe attitude you are criticising here is pure dogma, ungrounded from the actual unfolding of ideas. Which is not to say it does not have traction in many anglosphere departments: dogmas can get a lot of traction.

For example, 20th century analytic philosophy is unthinkable without Husserl, Wittgenstein & Frege: all European, and the former two very influential in the so called continental tradition.

There were influential analytic Hegelians, and in fact he's having a bit of a resurgence in (analytic) logicians.

The problem with French theory is not in the ideas/thinkers themselves (of course, there is much that can be criticised), but rather the way that they are unreflexively deployed as unquestionable dogmas. And this happens almost completely outside of philosophy departments. It is a disease, which has infected many parts of the social science/humanities body.

For example, Derrida has interesting things to say about the impossibility of justice, as does Rawls about how we might accomplish it; they are two radically different takes on the same problem. The issue is not what Derrida writes, it is in the army of Derrideans, who take him as a kind of guru, and make no effort to read or think outside of his paradigm. Same with Foucaldians et al.
I have met such doctrinaires but they are a dying breed in Europe. I mean, in my experience this is a student-level behaviour, mostly, and it usually dissipates entirely by the time one has completed one's PhD. After all, no commitment to the continental theory as such is really possible, since there are so many (and ever growing) stark differences within it, and the history of the debate means it is fairly difficult to keep narrow commitments as well -- impossible not to know that each of these (and any other) viewpoints both enable and delimit, open up and block from sight, and the only way to redeem them a bit in this respect is to bring in something from the outside.

When I was a student in the latish 1990s dogmatic Lyotardians were a plague (I was back then an even more doctrinaire Marcusian surrealist. The parties were wild. Was it fun). They had died out and been entirely forgotten by 2001, replaced by diehard Lacanians, also mostly extinct now. ANT-ism appears to be well on the way when it comes to occupying the throne of high fashion here, but Latourians are a disappointingly tame bunch in general.
Yeah, I hear you - it's all very undergrad, aligning to these different teams and tribes and famous names. Having said that, such cult'ish behavior is still everywhere I look in the humanities/social sciences. Foucault is still by far the most cited scholar. The epistemological die has been cast usually without anyone bothering to do the slightest amount of actual epistemology.

Within philosophy itself, I personally find both contemporary traditions of philosophy very disappointing, compared with some other great periods in western thought. I kind of arrived at the realisation that one is better off just reading Marx, Spinoza, Hume etc rather than Deleuze.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:19 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 7:24 pm
PeterC wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:27 am He also wasn't really a nihilist, the first few sections of Zarathustra make that very clear, he found meaning in the transformation of the individual, but he rejected finding meaning in the collective.
He was definitely a nihilist. His argument that the superior man was not obligated by the moral constraints imposed upon rest of us is a nihilism of narcissistic vanity.

He would be thrilled with the interpretation that some Vajrayāna wannabes promote that there are superior humans who may transgress the moral restrictions imposed on the herd because of their spiritual accomplishments.
I can't believe I'm here defending Nietzsche, but there's no way he's espousing nihilism…So, it is reactionary and it is aristocratic. But not nihilistic.
I disagree. His nihilism is evident in his moral contempt.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:38 pmHaving said that, such cult'ish behavior is still everywhere I look in the humanities/social sciences. Foucault is still by far the most cited scholar. The epistemological die has been cast usually without anyone bothering to do the slightest amount of actual epistemology.
Maybe it is discipline- (and location-)specific? But certainly a major, and maybe the most important problem, is that people are unprepared to rely on the methodology (if one can really talk here about methodology, after all it is so much more than just that) they "choose" to rely on. But then there is no way out of this trap. There is just too much to familiarize oneself with. One of the reasons I think a massive cultural shift (this needs to be read in a grim way) is coming is precisely this: since the 1990s it has been patently impossible to truly digest the developments in our thought. It is so even for specialists, laymen are utterly out of the game. It is probably why much of what we do feels (and is) underbaked. One cannot really bake when the recipe is constantly changing, when the very basics of cooking are constantly shifting, etc.
tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:38 pmWithin philosophy itself, I personally find both contemporary traditions of philosophy very disappointing, compared with some other great periods in western thought. I kind of arrived at the realisation that one is better off just reading Marx, Spinoza, Hume etc rather than Deleuze.
I am very happy about, and somewhat committed to, some post-War developments. Frankfurters are generally speaking my bunch, and I love post-husserlian phenomenology/hermeneutics; and I think much else has made incredibly valuable contributions here and there; Foucault would clearly be in that drawer, and Derrida, and so many others. But I guess that, in a sense, the desire to go back to the roots is irresistible (and, of course, this is what the most revelatory/promising post-War thinkers would do, Deleuze included). There are futures in the past, and the meaning of the present -- and nostalgia (utterly misunderstood by the vast majority of twentieth century philosophers/scholars) is not merely a salutary, but profoundly revolutionary drive. (Which is, I am sure, not at all what you had in mind.)
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Matt J »

There is some that is pretty good IMO, like Pierre Hadot. But per Hadot, most of what passes today as philosophy would be considered rhetoric or sophistry, as it does not aim at transforming the individual I suppose that is why many of us become Buddhists.

And why it is so disappointing to see ongoing abuse, sexism, homophobia, etc.
tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:38 pm Within philosophy itself, I personally find both contemporary traditions of philosophy very disappointing, compared with some other great periods in western thought. I kind of arrived at the realisation that one is better off just reading Marx, Spinoza, Hume etc rather than Deleuze.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

Matt J wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 1:37 pm There is some that is pretty good IMO, like Pierre Hadot. But per Hadot, most of what passes today as philosophy would be considered rhetoric or sophistry, as it does not aim at transforming the individual I suppose that is why many of us become Buddhists.

And why it is so disappointing to see ongoing abuse, sexism, homophobia, etc.
tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:38 pm Within philosophy itself, I personally find both contemporary traditions of philosophy very disappointing, compared with some other great periods in western thought. I kind of arrived at the realisation that one is better off just reading Marx, Spinoza, Hume etc rather than Deleuze.
Yes, I agree about Hadot. But what's interesting about him is that he was completely, 100% bucking all the intellectual trends of post-war France...and taking seriously the idea that ancient or medieval ideas are not just nostalgia or some reaction against modernity, but may have very practical things to teach us now.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 10:17 am
tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:38 pmHaving said that, such cult'ish behavior is still everywhere I look in the humanities/social sciences. Foucault is still by far the most cited scholar. The epistemological die has been cast usually without anyone bothering to do the slightest amount of actual epistemology.
Maybe it is discipline- (and location-)specific? But certainly a major, and maybe the most important problem, is that people are unprepared to rely on the methodology (if one can really talk here about methodology, after all it is so much more than just that) they "choose" to rely on. But then there is no way out of this trap. There is just too much to familiarize oneself with. One of the reasons I think a massive cultural shift (this needs to be read in a grim way) is coming is precisely this: since the 1990s it has been patently impossible to truly digest the developments in our thought. It is so even for specialists, laymen are utterly out of the game. It is probably why much of what we do feels (and is) underbaked. One cannot really bake when the recipe is constantly changing, when the very basics of cooking are constantly shifting, etc.
tobes wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:38 pmWithin philosophy itself, I personally find both contemporary traditions of philosophy very disappointing, compared with some other great periods in western thought. I kind of arrived at the realisation that one is better off just reading Marx, Spinoza, Hume etc rather than Deleuze.
I am very happy about, and somewhat committed to, some post-War developments. Frankfurters are generally speaking my bunch, and I love post-husserlian phenomenology/hermeneutics; and I think much else has made incredibly valuable contributions here and there; Foucault would clearly be in that drawer, and Derrida, and so many others. But I guess that, in a sense, the desire to go back to the roots is irresistible (and, of course, this is what the most revelatory/promising post-War thinkers would do, Deleuze included). There are futures in the past, and the meaning of the present -- and nostalgia (utterly misunderstood by the vast majority of twentieth century philosophers/scholars) is not merely a salutary, but profoundly revolutionary drive. (Which is, I am sure, not at all what you had in mind.)
I think that the underbaked-ness is connected to the kinds of conditions that modern academics work under. To much pressure, not enough resources, not enough time - it's simply not conducive to really careful, thorough, diligent scholarship. So you get a lot of half baked thinking, polished up for publication, which lacks the requisite time necessary to really become something exquisite.

As for post WWII philosophy, I agree that there have been some good-valuable contributions, some of which you have mentioned, and across both traditions. I am critical of the way Foucault is deployed (and very often severely misread, especially about power), but some of his work is incredibly prescient. His lectures on biopolitics remain the benchmark for understanding neoliberalism, and this was in 1982: before Thatcher and Reagan had really even unleashed the beast. To see something like that before it even really happens is quite amazing.

What I have in mind with engaging duly with canonical thinkers is basically to bypass the horribly unfounded dogma - introduced by Heidegger and adopted by many post-modern thinkers - that there is such a unified, generalisable thing called 'western metaphysics' which, we no longer have to deal with because we've moved beyond it. I was taught this in so many places as an undergrad, and I suppose I believed it for a while....but it is just a criminally absurd proposition.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:33 pm Heidegger
I think we can all agree Heidegger was utterly full of shit, and should be cancelled.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

tobes wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:33 pmI think that the underbaked-ness is connected to the kinds of conditions that modern academics work under. To much pressure, not enough resources, not enough time - it's simply not conducive to really careful, thorough, diligent scholarship. So you get a lot of half baked thinking, polished up for publication, which lacks the requisite time necessary to really become something exquisite.

As for post WWII philosophy, I agree that there have been some good-valuable contributions, some of which you have mentioned, and across both traditions. I am critical of the way Foucault is deployed (and very often severely misread, especially about power), but some of his work is incredibly prescient. His lectures on biopolitics remain the benchmark for understanding neoliberalism, and this was in 1982: before Thatcher and Reagan had really even unleashed the beast. To see something like that before it even really happens is quite amazing.
Agreed on all points. Foucault's readers badly need Marxian lenses, otherwise he does invite some utterly bleak (and self-cancelling) readings.

Heidegger-wise (I am a massive fan of his post-War years, the later, the better), strongly recommended:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/503 ... perception
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/558 ... perception

Nikolas Kompridis' as-yet unfinished project is also extremely promising. Both gentlemen are Frankfurters. Both contend that if Critical Theory is to be saved from its mortal (partially self-inflicted) wounds, it needs sizable chunks of Heidegger.
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:06 am
tobes wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:33 pmI think that the underbaked-ness is connected to the kinds of conditions that modern academics work under. To much pressure, not enough resources, not enough time - it's simply not conducive to really careful, thorough, diligent scholarship. So you get a lot of half baked thinking, polished up for publication, which lacks the requisite time necessary to really become something exquisite.

As for post WWII philosophy, I agree that there have been some good-valuable contributions, some of which you have mentioned, and across both traditions. I am critical of the way Foucault is deployed (and very often severely misread, especially about power), but some of his work is incredibly prescient. His lectures on biopolitics remain the benchmark for understanding neoliberalism, and this was in 1982: before Thatcher and Reagan had really even unleashed the beast. To see something like that before it even really happens is quite amazing.
Agreed on all points. Foucault's readers badly need Marxian lenses, otherwise he does invite some utterly bleak (and self-cancelling) readings.

Heidegger-wise (I am a massive fan of his post-War years, the later, the better), strongly recommended:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/503 ... perception
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/558 ... perception

Nikolas Kompridis' as-yet unfinished project is also extremely promising. Both gentlemen are Frankfurters. Both contend that if Critical Theory is to be saved from its mortal (partially self-inflicted) wounds, it needs sizable chunks of Heidegger.
I think that Heidegger's big contribution was to hermeneutics, and in fact it has become so naturalised that we may utilise it without even realising. Malcolm, as a translator - I wonder if 'text critical' methods would have even arisen without H?

I studied him a lot when I was younger, but with the passage of time I prefer his mentor Husserl. Sometimes I am led back to a Heideggerian notion of truth, especially when there are arguments in ethics that become way too reductively rationalistic.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

tobes wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:38 am
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:06 am
tobes wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 11:33 pmI think that the underbaked-ness is connected to the kinds of conditions that modern academics work under. To much pressure, not enough resources, not enough time - it's simply not conducive to really careful, thorough, diligent scholarship. So you get a lot of half baked thinking, polished up for publication, which lacks the requisite time necessary to really become something exquisite.

As for post WWII philosophy, I agree that there have been some good-valuable contributions, some of which you have mentioned, and across both traditions. I am critical of the way Foucault is deployed (and very often severely misread, especially about power), but some of his work is incredibly prescient. His lectures on biopolitics remain the benchmark for understanding neoliberalism, and this was in 1982: before Thatcher and Reagan had really even unleashed the beast. To see something like that before it even really happens is quite amazing.
Agreed on all points. Foucault's readers badly need Marxian lenses, otherwise he does invite some utterly bleak (and self-cancelling) readings.

Heidegger-wise (I am a massive fan of his post-War years, the later, the better), strongly recommended:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/503 ... perception
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/558 ... perception

Nikolas Kompridis' as-yet unfinished project is also extremely promising. Both gentlemen are Frankfurters. Both contend that if Critical Theory is to be saved from its mortal (partially self-inflicted) wounds, it needs sizable chunks of Heidegger.
I think that Heidegger's big contribution was to hermeneutics, and in fact it has become so naturalised that we may utilise it without even realising. Malcolm, as a translator - I wonder if 'text critical' methods would have even arisen without H?

I studied him a lot when I was younger, but with the passage of time I prefer his mentor Husserl. Sometimes I am led back to a Heideggerian notion of truth, especially when there are arguments in ethics that become way too reductively rationalistic.
Oh yes, aletheia mon amour.

He was spot on on Gestell, too (and Gestell, just like hermeneutics and aletheia/Erschlossenheit, has become quite naturalised, indeed "intuitive").
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:38 am
I think that Heidegger's big contribution was to hermeneutics, and in fact it has become so naturalised that we may utilise it without even realising. Malcolm, as a translator - I wonder if 'text critical' methods would have even arisen without H?
FFS, modern hermeneutics begin with Schleiermacher, and text critical methodology predates H by centuries, originating during the Enlightenment, in the West. Also Tsongkhapa, Buton, Ngorchen, and so on were astute text critical scholars, who needed to wade through multiple translations and compare them. And H’s Ancient Greek was a pretense.and let’s not even begin to discuss Vasubandhu, Candrakirti, and so on, who all were astute text critical scholars and practitioners of hermeneutics.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 2:13 pm
tobes wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 9:38 am
I think that Heidegger's big contribution was to hermeneutics, and in fact it has become so naturalised that we may utilise it without even realising. Malcolm, as a translator - I wonder if 'text critical' methods would have even arisen without H?
FFS, modern hermeneutics begin with Schleiermacher, and text critical methodology predates H by centuries, originating during the Enlightenment, in the West. Also Tsongkhapa, Buton, Ngorchen, and so on were astute text critical scholars, who needed to wade through multiple translations and compare them. And H’s Ancient Greek was a pretense.and let’s not even begin to discuss Vasubandhu, Candrakirti, and so on, who all were astute text critical scholars and practitioners of hermeneutics.
Of course hemeneutics predates Heidegger. And as possibly the worst student of Sanskrit to ever grace the planet, I'm in no position to see for myself......but, there seems to be an unmissable change in the way Buddhist scholarship/translations occur into European languages from the 60's or so. No one can avoid Gadamer, and his Heideggerian insight that our own horizons play a big role in shaping our textual interpretations. This is a big shift from the pseudo objective ideals of philology which previously held sway.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:34 am No one can avoid Gadamer...
We can completely ignore that, at least I have. Gadamer has zero influence on my work. I just don't cotton to Spenglarian interpretations of culture and history.

We work from commentaries and just translate what the texts actually say, as best we can. That's a function of understanding both the context and grammar of the source language, as well as being able to compose adequate sentences in the target language. Everything else is extraneous to that.

You can examine my work for yourself.

No translation is perfect, of course. But we do not need to pile theories upon theories, particularly by people who never did any serious translation work in their entire lives.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13259
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Ayu »

This topic has run its course (into off topic as well) and it seems to be a good time for locking now.
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”