Notes

why they made it
-reasons + motves

"Sire, I am known as Nagasena'...'Nagasena is only a mere name, because there is no person as such that is found.' (Craig p. 36)

Counter arguments
- If there is no self, the no one exits (Craig p.36)
---Craig states that King Milinda then intends to make Nagasena's logic apply equally to everyone (Craig p.36).
---"If it is true, no one ever does anything, right or wrong, nobody ever achieves anything, suffers anything (Craig p.36). "

The Buddhist doctrine of the 'five aggregates.'
-Material Form (body)
-Feeling (pleasure, pain, indifference; 5 Senses)
-Perception
- Mental Formations ( our dispositions, our character; thoughts)
- Consciousness
---A person is not one of these aggregates, but all aggregates in synthesis
----We are not feelings or perceptions, we are what has and carries feelings and perceptions
----We are not consciousness, we are what is conscio

Counter Argument #2
-The body does not move on its own (Craig p.38)
--Matter requires something to direct intelligent movement

There isn't a person Nagasena, but there is a Nagasena

The Chariot Analogy
--Traditionally, the chariot is used to describe how the conscious mind(chariot/charioteer) directs the body or senses (horses) (Craig p.41)
--Nasagena rejects this, doesn't mention horses at all, or a charioteer, or a rider of the chariot
----"There is no permanent presence, the self, directing or overseeing (Craig p.41)."
--Nagasena: "Is the axle the chariot?" "Are the wheels the Chariot?" "Is the chariot the pole, the axle, the wheels, ...the reins, and the goad all together?" No to all (Craig p.41)
---The Chariot exists as a mere designation, just as Nagasena exists as as mere designation, just because the five aggregates are present
---Nun Vajira "Just as when the parts are rightly set/ The word 'chariot is spoken,/ So when there are the aggregates/ It is the convention to say 'being'


Conclusion of Nagasenas Argument
--Craig states that the wholes are in a sense less real, less objective, and more a matter of convention, than are the parts that compose them (p. 42)
--he says, the parts are independent in a way that the whole is not: the axle can exist without the chariot but not the other way around (Craig p. 42)
--If in part is missing, it does not mean the whole is incomplete, but rather lacking in what we expect from the whole
---If the pole is missing, it is still a chariot but a shitty one
Why is it important
--our metaphysics affects our ethics (43)
--the way we think about reality affects the way we think about concepts and beliefs; God (43)
--