/lit/ - Literature

>>14572875
>that pic was already refuted here
No you didn't lol, all you did was say Hayes was wrong about something and then claimed this was prove that Robinson was wrong without actually addressing any of Robinson's points or explaining why they are wrong. You are coping so hard that it's embarrassing to watch

>>14572615
>illiam Magee strongly disagrees with Hayes
You citation says nothing about Robinson or what he got wrong about Nagarjuna.

>he thought as other scholars that agreed with him such as Huntington, that a western reading of Nagarjuna doesn't disseminate what Nagarjuna was demonstrating
Oh really? Because he is pretty clear in the article that thinks Nagarjuna did not successfully demonstrate the inherent contradictions in the views of other schools and constructive metaphysics in general, earlier in the article he accuses Nagarjuna of having a "shell game" that he uses to hide his flawed logic and he says that Nagarjuna pigeonholes his opponents and argues against strawman versions of their positions which his opponents themselves wouldn't accept. If Robinson doesn't accept that Nagarjuna successfully demonstrated the contradictions in other schools then what exactly is there remaining of value in Nagarjuna's thought that he is supposed to be accepting? Nagarjuna claimed to have no views and justified that by pointing to the alleged contradictions in other schools, but if Nagarjuna failed to demonstrate that as Robinson proves, does this not mean Nagarjuna's position of having no views is without any foundation?

Your whole post seems like one big cope and a desperate smoke-screen that's trying to shift the goal-posts, meanwhile you haven't provided a single reason why or a single citation showing why any critique that Robinson made of Nagarjuna's logic is wrong.

>why can't you deal with the fact that Robinson didn't convert to 'based Advaita'
Completely irrelevant to the fact that he obliterated Nagarjuna, more cope and trying to shift the goal-posts my anguished friend