If I were a newcomer to Buddhism I;d probably dismiss it for being unreliable, as indicated by its internal disagreements. — FrancisRay
"Maybe my thinking's a little out there (I think you had pointed out that my understanding of koans was not correct), but to me that reminds me of so many classic Zen stories. The teacher says something apparently contradictory, and the student is just confused. Sometimes maybe they leave, but those who stay learn -
This is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the disagreement within Buddhism as to what is true. (I don't remember saying your understanding of koans was incorrect). .
I don't know much about Nagarjuna, and I'm not saying his arguments are wrong. But at least, from my understanding, understanding metaphysical arguments just isn't totally necessary in practice to get the results.
You're right, of course. But this in no way changes the fact that a doctrine that is not metaphysically sound is a mistake. As Aurobindo notes, and as the Buddha implies when he invites us to apply our critical reason to his teachings. metaphysics is a reliable guardian against error. .
"This isn't to shoot you down. I don't know much about your practice (you say it's not Buddhist). But for some people who are prone to digging themselves too deep into a book, I would say: Do what HippyHead does. Go out in the woods and just sit there and enjoy it.
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. This is a philosophy forum,and so I do not appeal to experience. My point is that a study of metaphysics reveals that Buddhism doctrine is the only one that works, as Nagarjuna shows, and this is the case regardless of our beliefs, faiths, hopes and dreams. ,If this was a Buddhist forum full of practitioners I;d come at it differently.
In Theravada metaphysics is bound to be played down since it reveals things best left unrevealed. In Mahayana metaphysics is an easy way to show the sound logical basis of the Buddha's teachings.
Most Buddhists I've met have no interest and no knowledge of metaphysics and have some funny ideas about it. Yet analysis allows us to shed light on the teachings and to demonstrate their sense and plausibility. Zen koans would be impossible to explain (as opposed to 'grok') without a grasp of logic and metaphysics.
Maybe we should thrash this one out properly on a separate thread.
.
. . .