To a Buddhist your paragraph is a muddle of misconceptions. What you call the real world would be unreal. What makes you say it is real? Realism causes nothing but paradoxes and contradictions in metaphysics, which suggest it is false. — FrancisRay

Sorry, more sloppy writing on my part. I wasn't using the term "real world" as precisely as you are. I was just trying to make a common sense distinction between, say, the pencil on my desk, and the symbol "pencil" in my mind. I should likely try to upgrade my lingo as you are not the first person I've confused with it.

I realise you want to throw philosophy away, but God gave us a brain and we may as well use it. — FrancisRay

Not exactly, as documented by my 40 billion posts on the forum. :-) Instead, allow me to remind you of what we seem to have already agreed upon, using philosophy to explore it's limits.

Not to take this antidote is to risk believeing all sorts of nonsense. — FrancisRay

To play the role of quibble monster, :-) to the degree I "throw philosophy away" I run no such risk, as the nonsense philosophy will go in the trash can with all the rest. To the degree I attempt to find the "correct philosophy" then I will inevitably be generating conflict with those who find a different "one true way" than I do.

As example, consider Christianity (I don't know Buddhist history and so can't use that as example). Christianity is a very well intended philosophy about bringing people together in peace. And what happened? It broke up in to a thousand sects which then came in to conflict with each other, sometimes with murderous results. If I were to propose some new flavor of Christianity which supposedly would fix this, I would thereby be joining and adding to the ongoing conflict.

My point here, as usual, is that the electro-chemical information medium that ALL philosophies are made of operates by a process of division, thus ANYTHING made of thought generates more division. That is, all philosophies inherent the properties of the medium which they are all made of.

To the degree one accepts such a perspective, it puts philosophy as a whole in a new light. This is fascinating to me, but again, need not be to anyone else.

I suspect your low view of philosophy — FrancisRay

Again, please observe me generating large volumes of philosophy. And please recall our earlier agreement regarding using thought to explore it's limits.

If you want to take this 'no-thought' route then Zen practice would be just the ticket. But this profoundly simple practice is justified in philosophy by Nagarjuna's not-so-simple logic. — FrancisRay

Ok, I bow to your expertise on Nagarjuna, of whom I still know basically nothing. Just wish to add that there is another simpler way to justify a "no-thought route", one's experience.

I'm really not trying to argue with anyone's philosophy so much as I'm seeking the most efficient route the bottom line. One could spend years studying "no thought" philosophy and then come to it that way. Or, one could simply try "no thought", see what happens, draw one's own conclusions, and proceed from there.

Again, whatever works and to each their own is agreeable to me. But, this is a philosophy forum so if one person says "tomato" the next person is likely going to say "tomawto", as that is the dance we do here.

So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. — FrancisRay

I agree with all of this!

Imho, the source of the binary thinking is thought itself, how it operates. The evidence for this is that everything the mind touches gets chopped up in to opposing binary pieces. If true, we can escape binary thinking simply by not thinking. Or more realistically most of the time, by lowering the volume of the thought machine.

I agree that lowering the volume of thought is not necessarily simple pimple instant easy, especially at first, but then it need not be very complicated either. A high school kid can teach simple mechanical exercises for calming the mind.

A possible problem with all of the above is that it's a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, much in the same way that eating lunch does not end hunger forever.

And because it's not a permanent solution, it's not glamorous, which turns out to be a really lame marketing strategy. :-) And the thing is, we often don't want simple solutions, but instead a glorious mountain to climb. Well, ok then, everyone is free to climb if that is the path they prefer. Not complaining, just attempting however ineptly to explore alternatives.

For a practitioner discursive philosophy is not important, but for anyone else it is the only way to work out where the truth lies — FrancisRay

"The Truth" lies just beyond the symbolic realm. It's right there in front of our face at all times.

Imho, the source of the binary thinking is thought itself, how it operates. "

This is what Nagarjuna proves. The psycho-physical is a world-of-opposites for this reason ,since it is constructed by Mind. These are the categories of thought, and they would have to be transcended for Nagarjuna;s 'emptiness', the Unity spoken of in mysticism and the Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity. If the source of binary thinking is thought itself (and not the binary world 'out there') then the source of the world 'out there' is thought. .

----"The evidence for this is that everything the mind touches gets chopped up in to opposing binary pieces".

Yes. It is not possible to think without using the categories of thought, which are binary. You're making many good Buddhist arguments; . .

For meditation it is not necessary to stop thinking. Rather, it is necessary not to follow ones thoughts. This is not an easy trick to learn.

--- "A possible problem with all of the above is that it's a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, much in the same way that eating lunch does not end hunger forever."

Yes. Hence Buddhism is rather more than just calming the mind.

"The Truth" lies just beyond the symbolic realm. It's right there in front of our face at all times.

On what grounds do you make this claim?

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly — praxis

And if you were actually motivated by what you claim to be motivated by, reason, you would surgically identify whatever aspects of religion (which you are clearly very interested in) you can make constructive use of, and then throw the rest in the trash bin. It's entirely possible to do this without in anyway whatsoever becoming religious.

Every day you go to thread after thread on forum after forum to toss all the things you don't like about religion in the dumpster, which is rational. But then you jump in the dumpster and endlessly roll around in all the discarded trash which you have already identified as being of no use to you, which is NOT rational.

If it should be true that there is absolutely nothing about religion which you can make constructive use of, ok, fair enough. Lots of people feel that way. I have no complaint, to each their own. Should this be the case, then what is rational about spending every day for years in religion threads???

The thing is praxis, you want to lecture everyone about reason, but you don't actually believe in it yourself. That's why everyone finds you so tiresome. You're a heretic. To your own position.

Here's what reason looks like. Shit or get off the pot. Find something in religion you can make constructive use of and focus on that, or let religion go, and redirect your time and intelligence at more promising targets.

And, if I actually believed in reason, I would be taking all the good advice I've been getting to walk away from you and leave you to your fate. But, I'm as nutzo as you are, so no worries, it's safe, the circus merry-go-round can go on, endlessly round and round and round, to nowhere.

This is what Nagarjuna proves — FrancisRay

Ok, cool, so we aren't really debating, just using different language and methods to head in the same general direction.

If the source of binary thinking is thought itself (and not the binary world 'out there') then the source of the world 'out there' is thought. . — FrancisRay

Hmm.... Don't quite get this. Would you like to expand on this a bit? Do you mean, like, the moon is made of thought? Probably not. Obviously, I don't get it.

Yes. It is not possible to think without using the categories of thought, which are binary. You're making many good Buddhist arguments — FrancisRay

Except that I didn't know they were Buddhist arguments until, um, yesterday. :-) It seems that somehow I've absorbed at least some of Buddhism from, somewhere, without being educated enough to identify the original source. Or maybe I've just come to a similar place by my own methods. No idea really.

Yes. Hence Buddhism is rather more than just calming the mind. — FrancisRay

Yes, I understand. I'm not attempting to redefine Buddhism, but perhaps, um, offering related alternatives?

"The Truth" lies just beyond the symbolic realm. It's right there in front of our face at all times. — FrancisRay

On what grounds do you make this claim? — FrancisRay

Fair question. Hmm....

In part, it's just a language issue, as I tend to use the words "real" and "truth" to refer to that which symbols point to. Not very important, I wouldn't argue with other word choices.

This language use seems to arise from my experience of spending tons of time in the North Florida woods. I've developed this sense that what we're really looking for is embedded in the material world. Some people might call this God? Not being religious myself I guess I chose the word truth.

Truth is usually thought of a some collection of symbols which point accurately to the material world. I'm ok with that, but to me, it feels more like truth is the real world, and symbols merely point to the truth. Some symbols are more accurate than others, but to me, they're still all just symbols, and not "truth".

Dunno if I've explained that well, even to myself.

Hmm.... Don't quite get this. Would you like to expand on this a bit? Do you mean, like, the moon is made of thought? Probably not. Obviously, I don't get it.


If the source of 'binary distinctions (the categories of thought) is thought itself, the very nature of thought, then thought is the source of distinctions and divisions in the world. This is mysticism. The idea is that Reality is undivided and free of all distinctions but thought chops it up into subjects and objects, here and there, this and that. This chopping-up or symmetry-breaking would create the words of life and death. Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both.

---" It seems that somehow I've absorbed at least some of Buddhism from, somewhere, without being educated enough to identify the original source. Or maybe I've just come to a similar place by my own methods. No idea really."

I think you're proving that all that is required for Bu8ddhist philosophy is clear thinking, or enlightened common sense. Metaphysics becomes very easy once one sees what Nagarjuna is saying. He is saying the metaphysics does not endorse a positive result, which is a fact well-known to most philosophers. It is just that most cannot make sense of this fact. Mysticism allows us to make sense of it and thus understand philosophy. .

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. But in mysticism when someone states where the truth lies they are expected to know, not to have just a feeling or a conjecture. .Your intuition of truth would be a hint of the omniscience that is available to us through self-enquiry, what Heidegger would call the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth. . .

When Lao Tsu is asked how he knows the truth about origins and creation he replies, 'I look inside myself and see'. He says nothing about looking 'out there' in the world. . .

.

If the source of 'binary distinctions (the categories of thought) is thought itself, the very nature of thought, then thought is the source of distinctions and divisions in the world. This is mysticism. The idea is that Reality is undivided and free of all distinctions but thought chops it up into subjects and objects, here and there, this and that. — FrancisRay

Ah, yes, exactly what I meant as well. Just a language hiccup, thanks for clarifying.

This chopping-up or symmetry-breaking would create the words of life and death. Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both. — FrancisRay

I like this a lot. If you wish, please expand on the "underlying state common to both". I've expressed similar ideas in my own more clumsy language, but the underlying state notion is new. Tell me more.

I think you're proving that all that is required for Buddhist philosophy is clear thinking, or enlightened common sense. — FrancisRay

Ok, and for those allergic to anything that smells like it might be a religion, we might also just call it clear thinking. Though, that said, I'm not sure clear thinking alone is sufficient. But anyway...

He is saying the metaphysics does not endorse a positive result, which is a fact well-known to most philosophers. It is just that most cannot make sense of this fact. Mysticism allows us to make sense of it and thus understand philosophy. — FrancisRay

If you wish, I would welcome a further expansion of this too. How does mysticism allow us to make sense of metaphysics? I suppose it might help if I knew what metaphysics is :-) always forgetting that.

As is probably clear by now, I'm not a philosopher in the sense of being well read etc. You know, my source material is pine trees, palmetto bushes, armadillos, dirt etc. :-) I have little knowledge of who said what about who what and when and so on.

When Lao Tsu is asked how he knows the truth about origins and creation he replies, 'I look inside myself and see'. He says nothing about looking 'out there' in the world — FrancisRay

Ok, well, was Lao Tsu an urban dweller, or did he live in the country?

I do hear what you're saying. The experience I'm reporting does happen within, that's true.

I'm just reporting how that experience feels to me, anecdotal report, that's all. If I were to jump in the lake, I'd get all wet. When I jump in to the woods, should I stay long enough, I get all "truth". That is, whatever it is we're attempting to point to, it feels to me as if it's embedded in the material world. This proves nothing, except that I like it. :-)

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. I cannot see the point of your approach and clearly it prevents you from learning anything. I will not respond to you from now on. — FrancisRay

How many times do I need to point out the obvious? I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy. That is the core of the topic, after all. If you don’t want to respond to my points then don’t. Whinny ad hominem attacks are not an argument.

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. — FrancisRay

Me either.

I cannot see the point of your approach — FrancisRay

Me either. Well, other than the emotional buzz of the gotcha dance, I get that part.

clearly it prevents you from learning anything — FrancisRay

Seems reasonable, but unproven.

That is the core of the topic, after all — praxis

It's the core of the thread title, eight pages ago. Elegant arguments from highly informed members revealing the limitations of the title have since been presented at great length.

Whinny ad hominem attacks — praxis

Don't see any.

Elegant arguments from highly informed members revealing the limitations of the title have since been presented at great length. — Hippyhead

Right, the limited view that has been freed by a modern perspective, where we can see Buddhism as a philosophy, science, art, or indeed, a religion.

You seem to highly value a modern perspective, despite the terrible loss of an intimate relationship with reality and our deep existential plight. I guess it’s worth the price of admission?

Whinny ad hominem attacks
— praxis

Don't see any. — Hippyhead

No doubt. Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points is a feeble minded attempt to invalidate anything I say and a logical fallacy.

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly
— praxis

And if you were actually motivated by what you claim to be motivated by, reason, you would surgically identify whatever aspects of religion (which you are clearly very interested in) you can make constructive use of, and then throw the rest in the trash bin. It's entirely possible to do this without in anyway whatsoever becoming religious.

Every day you go to thread after thread on forum after forum to toss all the things you don't like about religion in the dumpster, which is rational. But then you jump in the dumpster and endlessly roll around in all the discarded trash which you have already identified as being of no use to you, which is NOT rational.

If it should be true that there is absolutely nothing about religion which you can make constructive use of, ok, fair enough. Lots of people feel that way. I have no complaint, to each their own. Should this be the case, then what is rational about spending every day for years in religion threads???

The thing is praxis, you want to lecture everyone about reason, but you don't actually believe in it yourself. That's why everyone finds you so tiresome. You're a heretic. To your own position.

Here's what reason looks like. Shit or get off the pot. Find something in religion you can make constructive use of and focus on that, or let religion go, and redirect your time and intelligence at more promising targets.

And, if I actually believed in reason, I would be taking all the good advice I've been getting to walk away from you and leave you to your fate. But, I'm as nutzo as you are, so no worries, it's safe, the circus merry-go-round can go on, endlessly round and round and round, to nowhere. — Hippyhead

Cute caricature that shows how your mind works.

The crazy thing is that the only thing I’m doing in this topic is committing the cardinal sin of arguing that Buddhism is a religion. :lol:

Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points — praxis

Except that you don't understand the issues, so it's not an insult, but rather a factual statement.

Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points
— praxis

Except that you don't understand the issues, so it's not an insult, but rather a factual statement. — Hippyhead

So show where I demonstrate a lack understanding.

Cute caricature that shows how your mind works. The crazy thing is that the only thing I’d doing in this topic is committing the cardinal sin of arguing that Buddhism is a religion — praxis

Wow! Two entire sentences! You must be exhausted. Do you want to lay down?

Buddhism is a religion! OMG! Who knew??? Fascinating!!!

If only you could be so frugal with what bounces around in your head. But please, you were going to show there I demonstrate a lack of understanding.

So show where I demonstrate a lack understanding. — praxis

Ok, but first, pay the bill.

1) Start a thread where you share your insights on any topic of your choice without making any reference whatsoever to anything anybody else has said.

2) Either find something in any religion which you can personally put to constructive use and explore that, or let the subject of religion go and move on to some other arena where you can find something of constructive use. That is, be rational. This is only a request that you be loyal to your own chosen methodology, nothing more.

When you can show that 1) you're not a chronic troll, and that 2) you do have a perspective which you believe in enough to act on yourself, I predict your ratings will rise.

Ok, but first — Hippyhead

:lol:

If only you could be so frugal with what bounces around in your head. But please, you were going to show there I demonstrate a lack of understanding. — praxis

Will assist with this to the degree desired, after you pay the bill.

If you choose not to pay the bill, ok, no problem. I'm not going to chase you around and yell at you etc. But I probably will finally take the advice to ignore you. Maybe that matters, maybe not, no idea really, up to you.

Will assist with this to the degree desired, after you pay the bill. — Hippyhead

You’ve really outdone yourself this time, Hippyhead, and that’s a tall order. You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.

---"If you wish, I would welcome a further expansion of this too. How does mysticism allow us to make sense of metaphysics? I suppose it might help if I knew what metaphysics is :-) always forgetting that.

As is probably clear by now, I'm not a philosopher in the sense of being well read etc. You know, my source material is pine trees, palmetto bushes, armadillos, dirt etc. :-) I have little knowledge of who said what about who what and when and so on.".

Okay. Here goes. Let me do this in stages. You are at a huge advantage over most folk since you have not been brainwashed and confused by studying philosophy academically. I had the same advantage and am very thankful.

The first,task would be to figure out why so few people understand metaphysics. The reason is that all positive theories fail in logic. A 'positive' theory states that Reality is 'this' as opposed to 'that',It is the idea that one or more of the categories of thought are fundamental. For instance, we might conjecture that Reality is Mind as opposed to Matter or vice versa, or that we do or do-not have freewill, that we exist or exist-not and so on. These are extreme, partial, selective and positive views. .

These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible. It is for this reason that many philosophers conclude that metaphysics is hopeless and a waste of time. Kant puts this conclusion as, 'All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. Bradley puts it as, 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. This is the reason why metaphysics seems hopeless to most people.

What creates this problem is not the failure of these theories but the assumption that no other kind of theory is possible. This assumption is popular because the only other kind of theory is the one endorsed by the mystics. This possibility is rejected as a matter of principle by Russell's 'Western' tradition of thought. I know of no academic philosophers who have a grasp of what lies beyond the walls of the Academy. It is assumed the mystics have nothing of value to say about philosophy. The lack of scholarship is astonishing.

The solution is obvious. It is to assume all positive theories are false and this is why they are absurd. Then we are forced to adopt the neutral metaphysical theory endorsed by Nagarjuna, who is famous for explaining the philosophical foundation of Buddhism. When we assume a neutral theory is true we immediately dispose of all undecidable metaphysical problems. The solution is instant and comprehensive. .

I'll pause before continuing because this is the essential point. If we grasp that metaphysical problems are undecidable then we are half way to understanding metaphysics. .

A useful problem to study is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Which came first? This is an undecidable question and the source of endless angst in philosophy. Mysticism says the answer is neither, and if we see how this is possible then we have understood the problem and solved it. The answer takes us beyond the categories of thought thus beyond the possibility of thought, but even so we can think about it. , .

So, the first proposition for a solution for metaphysics would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible'. This is the problem, If you can see what this statement means and agree with it then we can move on to solution.

You're right to say that thinking is not enough for an understanding of Reality, but it's enough to solve metaphysical problems. . . .



.

Cool it!

I suspect your low view pf philosophy comes from surveying the state of Western academic or university philosophy. If I didn't know more than academics usually know about the subject I'd also believe philosophy is a waste of time. But anyone who understands Nagarjuna's logical argument knows more than most professors.

The idea of meditation would be lead one from the symbolic or 'conventional' world to the real or 'ultimate' world. Sensory observation would have the opposite effect. To escape from what you call the real world would be the cessation of suffering. To be stuck in it would the definition of suffering. . — FrancisRay

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought? — Hippyhead

I'm still unclear as to what you mean. Partly because, to be frank, I'm not well-educated on philosophy (and I don't think it's wrong to say that a lack of education would influence one's aversion or resistance to the subject). Nonetheless I think philosophy could be good for a lot of things.

But the Buddhist position, as far as I know, is we get caught up in a world that is continually in flux and bound to fall apart if we don't hold it together; things arise, are maintained, and cease when they can no long be maintained. Nevertheless, in Buddhism, we must use these things as tools for a good reason, whether it be thinking or perception.

I think philosophers might argue what that "good reason" is, or what defines "good", etc. I think this isn't totally bad. It can lead to good dicussion. But the Buddhist approach is: you won't get there just by thinking or debating about it, and while you're sitting there debating, you're getting old and dying along with everyone else. And even if you do come to an agreement, other factors may come into play to challenge it and break it apart. It's nature. I think that's what TheMadFool is referring to when he speaks of "entropy," but in Buddhism, arising and ceasing should both be taken into account, and we learn how to make good things arise and how to make bad things cease for the purpose of ending our own suffering if not the suffering of others. The response isn't pessimism, but sobriety.

I'd rather say that if we take a scientific approach we will not be led astray. Most people view the world pre-analytically, adopting a folk-psychological realism whereby kicking a rock is enough to prove its reality. The value of philosophy is that it debunks this naive idea. Once the idea is debunked perhaps analysis can be abandoned, but to abandon it while holding on to logically-absurd and indefensible ideas would be to seriously shoot oneself in the foot. — FrancisRay

So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. . , . — FrancisRay

I think the trick is actually quite involved with respecting whatever sense of "reality" we get from sensory experience and using it wisely. Regardless of whether or not a rock is ultimately real, we can still treat it with respect and not just smash it out of impulse or throw it at people. And that's partly because we're willing to train ourselves not to engage in those behaviors and observe our impulses and refrain from them. From there, we can observe our ideas about "rock", and even observe the sensory experience itself, and just let it fade away and let the mind settle into something deeper. The path is gradual; the Buddha doesn't have us thinking about this "reality" business right off that bat while we're still indulging in fine wine and even killing insects. Putting those habits aside is necessary for entering meditative absorption where thinking and evaluation are quite quickly refined and then put aside.

Looking at Zen, we see the usage of koans, which to my understanding are meant to help us break through a habitual tendency to crave logical clarity. And similarly, in Thai Theravada, we have all sorts of methods for cultivating dispassion to our sense of self, our body, and even the sensory world. Everything from koans to the suttas are tools for arousing dispassion and letting go to anything one is attached to, be it duality or non-duality. So while getting beyond "yes-no" thinking is arguably quite important (especially since it helps us attend to nuance and avoid getting trapped in our own ideas), it is not the essence, which is dispassion and release. Given that that binary way of thinking can be transcended by directing focus to dispassion and release, I think that's where the focus should be placed. And it still takes place in a binary of "suffering and not suffering". And not everyone wants to do it, because they're impassioned with ideas and philosophies. Edit: perhaps in the Buddha's words, they haven't seen the drawbacks and the path to escape from those drawbacks (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/adinava/index.html).

The origin of "problems", the Buddha said, is just our ignorance. Meaning, we don't pay attention to the processes of our life, especially the process of suffering. From that one point we start attending wrongly, intending wrongly, speaking wrongly, and acting wrongly; this includes getting caught up in binary thinking or even non-dual thinking, having failed to realize the limits of both. When we decide that we want to be free from suffering, we'll start to move into a better direction. Virtue, meditation, insight, thinking, robes, food, lodgings, a joyful life etc. - all are used with this purpose in mind, under the premise that this focus will solve our problems (though not necessarily the world's problems).

Looking at zen, we see the usage of Koans, which to my understanding are meant to help us break through a habitual tendency to crave logical clarity.

Nice post. I can agree with most of what you say but not this statement. But it's quite a technical matter and not easy to deal with on a forum. .

In short, a koan draws our attention to the need to transcend dialectical logic and the categories of thought for the true nature of Reality. .Having done so we can achieve logical clarity.

For this clarity we would have to grok Nagarjuna's theory of two truths or worlds, by which all selective statements about reality are inadequate. This is a double-aspect theory by which reality has a Conventional and Ultimate aspect, both of which have to be taken into account. Thus the endlessly (seemingly) self-contradictory nature of the language of mysticism and non-duality. It is logically rigorous and precise but takes effort to understand.

The idea that mysticism is 'illogical' or logically unclear is a misunderstanding. It's answer for 'this or that' metaphysical questions is the same in every case. It is to reject both for a middle way. It was said earlier that 'middle way' refers to the balance between indulgence and asceticism, but this is just one application. It has infinite applications and is indispensable in philosophy. It would be because this idea is indispensable that Western philosophy, which has no knowledge of it, goes nowhere
e from one century to the next. . .

Pardon my enthusiasm. I become agitated when anyone suggests mysticism is not logical and cannot be analysed in philosophy. This is the idea peddled by the professors, and it is poppycock and balderdash.

Of course, all this talking can be be sidestepped by meditation and realisation as advised by the Buddha, but in a sceptical world analysis becomes vital.

You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding — praxis

Patiently awaiting receipt of your payment. Take your time. Or ignore, as you wish.

Francis, a quick tip. If you highlight text in a person's post a little quote button will appear. When you click that button their text will be automatically quoted in your reply box.