and avoid a schism which would be perhaps be caused by a radically new interpretation of the vinaya. — TLCD1996

Aren't schisms inevitable in every philosophy, religion, ideology etc?

If yes, what can we learn from that?

We learn that it's a good idea to investigate the world with logic and experience and not just speculate or buy into someone else's ideas. . .

Given that some may seem to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism or conflate them (I've heard so much that Buddhism is rebranded Hinduism), given that some Hindus see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, given that many western philosophers e.g. Huxley, Emerson have taken up Hinduism in some way when speaking of "The East", given that Hindu figures (e.g. Sadhguru) may reference Buddhist teachings and vice versa, and given that Hinduism has been referenced here in this thread, it doesn't seem wrong to bring up Hinduism.

Quite so. It would be odd not to bring it up.

Culturally, methodologically, linguistically and psychologically the various traditions vary, but the truth is the truth and the nature of Reality is the nature of Reality. To say these religions lead to different places and different discoveries is to say they are unscientific, untrustworthy and implausible.
Oneness is always the core message and union with Reality the goal,

'I and the Father are One' says Jesus, summarising the entire affair. .

“It is the goal of spiritual life to open to the reality that exists beyond our small sense of self. Through the gate of oneness we awaken to the ocean within us, we come to know in yet another way that the seas we swim in are not separate from all that lives. When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world. It is all ours, and our heart is full and empty, large enough to embrace it all.”

Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that,

Could you explain which bit of this Buddhism is not about? I cannot see how it can be about anything else.

...that's why I'm not one to say that all other religions are wrong, but I will not hesitate to say I'm skeptical that they all lead to the same place. — TLCD1996

Well, they all lead to death, which in my unproven faith based perspective is reunion with something. Or nothing. Or nothing that is also a something. Or, most likely, I haven't the slightest idea what.


I'd go back to an earlier comment and suggest that when we can see that all religions lead to the same place, albeit more or less effectively, then we know we're intepreting them about right.

I abandoned Christianity as tosh at the age of twelve. Decades later I discovered Buddhism and helped by a study of it suddenly began to understand Christianity. I learn a great deal about Buddhism from Taoism, about Catholicism from Sufism, and about Hermeticism from Advaita.
.
I feel that to suggest these traditions are all significantly different in their core teachings is suppose religion is a lot of nonsense.

↪TiredThinker

"Ch’an is the Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit ‘dhyana’ which means ‘meditative absorption’. The Japanese version is the more familiar ‘Zen’".(Wayfairer)

A patriarch of Zen is the Noble Nagarjuna. He is famous for making clear the philosophical foundation of the Buddha's teachings. In his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way he reduces to absurdity all positive metaphysical theories, thus proving the logical soundness of non-dualism and a neutral metaphysical position.

So, yes,. Zen/Ch'an has a sound and unshakeable logical foundation. It's the foundation of the Perennial philosophy. This is why no workable fundamental theory can be found in Western thought. The only theory that works is the only one it rejects as a matter of principle.

Zen gives the appearance of being unconcerned with analysis and logic, but there's an iron fist inside the glove. .

Right now that line of thought is being questioned, and I think it ought to be because it's rather speculative. Ajahn Geoff, who I respect and right now is among many scholarly voices in the Theravadin lineage, connects this sentiment to Romantic philosophy and fervently speaks against it.

Theravadans endorse a doctrine that clashes with the Perennial philosophy so must fight like crazy to debunk the idea of the unity of religion,. This is why i have no time for Theravada. It is metaphysically unsound. The fact that it cannot reconcile the teachings of the various traditions is evidence that it is an incorrect view. I would take no notice of Ajann Geoff. He does religion a disservice. Sorry to be so outspoken but your comment shows the damage done by this errant view.

---"I think Buddhism is thus unlikely to be on the same page as Krishnamurti or Advaita Vedanta teachings, even though they may seem quite similar in their expression.

Metaphysically they are identical. It would astonishing if those who went in search of truth all found something different. Of course they all find the same truth. If they did not mysticism would be implausible.

I thought your comments above on suffering were excellent. .

This is a significant statement in relation to my ‘project’ because it inspires curiosity as to why you’re not a Buddhist. It’s natural to suspect that the reason may have to do with a rejection of some kind.


Well, I could say I'm a Buddhist and a Taoist and a Christian and an advaitan, and as such don't feel I have the right to claim membership of any one. I don't see these as different teachings, just different methods and languages. It's a rejection of exclusivity and parochialism. , . .

Well, this is brilliant. We may have transcended our difficulties and this is quite an achievement. We should pat ourselves on the back.

Our discussion is complicated by the divide between strands of Buddhism. In the Mahayana tradition, which I regard as the mainstream, no authority is recognised except experience, and nobod can have our experiences except us. (Although eventually one goes beyond experience). To rely on authority is the way of the dogmatic exoteric religions who regard mysticism as heresy. .

Even interpretation need cause no problems since it is only the knowledge acquired in our own experience that allows us to interpret correctly, and if it is sufficient no interpretation is necessary. . My view is that we have found the correct interpretation when we see that all the mystics are saying the same thing. If they seem to disagree then this would indicate a fault in our interpretation. In the end the doctrine is uninterpretable without the knowledge required to understand it, which can only be self-knowledge.

However, I am not a Buddhist but a metaphysician. In metaphysics it is possible to be definite and clear about the issues and demonstrate arguments and results. None of it is a matter of opinion, authority or interpretation. Thus I may seem to be more definite and confident in my views than a typical Buddhist practitioner who is referring only to as-yet limited exerience and the sutras. This would be why Nagarjuna is unusual an so important. He allows us to pin-down much of what the Buddhas was saying without having to take up the practice or refer to authority. We can simply work it out. ,

. . . .

In recent years Hippyheadism has speculated that this phenomena is space. Ever present at every scale, both real and non-existing, transcending simplistic human dualism, perhaps tirelessly watching. This Thing we're looking for, embedded in the fabric of reality, right in front of our faces at all times.

Why do you assume spatial and temporal extension is real? This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine. In Buddhism space is defined as 'non-obstruction'. No suggestion that it is a thing. The phrase 'advaita' implies there are not two places or two times. . .

Ah, I see. Well, I have no idea who the Theravadans are, but this sounds like the kind of ideological divisions which inevitably arise in every ideology. As I've said, probably too many times, I find the universal nature of that phenomena to be instructive.

Exactly! If Buddhist doctrine is not universal then it is nonsense. Theravada is an ideology, or so it seems to me, while Mahayana or 'Greater Vehicle' is the search for truth; It is not possible to be a serious metaphysician or meditative practitioner and maintain an ideology.

However, formal metaphysics is like mathematics. One just has to shut up and calculate and there is no arguing with the results. This is why I don't like your laissez faire approach. It is unscientific. If we use our reason we find we do not have a free choice as to what to believe. This is exactly what Nagarjuna proved, for the sake of unifying the sangha.

I'm going to have to break my rule again in order to apologise (dammit). I should not have asked you to go away. .

I'd rather you stayed, as a useful voice of scepticism, but I just wish you;d listen to what people are saying. Internet forums are wonderful places for learning but the process fails when one starts arguing for a pet theory and stops listening. The fact that all of us here are in close agreement except you should give you pause for thought. If you find yourself unwilling to pause for thought then this should give you pause for thought. . .

You asked about the substrate that is the continuum underlying life and death and is our immortality. This would be the ‘spirit that rolls through all things’ Wordsworth feels in his heart as he walks around Tintern Abbey in the Wye valley, the very same spirit you feel as you walk the woods paying attention to life and the Great Spirit of the native Americans, the One that is All known as Wakantanka.

This substrate or Source would be the only phenomena that is truly real. It would be everywhere at all times because the extended space-time world would not be truly real. This is what we learn in Buddhist practice if we have some success. This would be how God is able to watch every sparrow that falls. He would be unable not to watch.

Human beings would not be exceptions to the rule. Lao Tsu is able to know the truth about the origin of creation by ‘looking inside himself’. Inside us, prior to our intellect and discursive mind, and cleverly veiled by our intellect and discursive mind, would be the source of our intellect and discursive mind. This is not subject to life and death.

A brief way of stating all this is to say that Reality is a Unity, but this word often causes misunderstandings. It is not easy to understand the meaning of ‘Unity’ and at limit impossible. To properly know the intended meaning of this word we would have to properly know the true nature of
Reality.

We can know this because we are Reality. What else could we be? ‘Within’ each of us, prior to our sense of individuality, is a spark of God, the pristine awareness, let us say, from which the world emerges. Without this spark we are nothing. Thus Iman Ali, the first Shia Imam, asks us why we think we are puny beings when ‘within us the universe is enfolded’.

The only way to know this substrate is to ask ‘Who am I?’ and keep asking until we find out.
Nagarjuna proves that this Ultimate has no positive attributes or properties and is a Unity in this sense or, as Plotinus puts it, a ‘One with no Second’. This would be why metaphysics does not endorse a positive result.

Thus you simply are this substrate and Ultimate. That is to say, as Schrödinger puts it, ‘I am God’ as are you. The appearance of ‘you’ and ‘me’ would be just that, an appearance. As such it is possible to look beyond. The Ultimate, Brahman, Wakantanka or Source, the goal to which Buddhist aspire, is not, as Jesus puts is, ‘Lo! Here or Lo! There’. It is who we are. It seems obvious that everything is Reality but it’s quite easy to forget.

This would be the reason why anyone is capable of feeling ‘the spirit that rolls through all things’, whether they are on the plains of the mid-West before the white man arrived, on the Tibetan plateau in 500 BC, roaming the hills outside Jerusalem at the time of Jesus or right this minute wherever we happen to be. It is an omnipresence. A full realisation of this is said to be our birthright. Not a gift of God to His selected cronies but our inevitable destination if we persevere.

We can all sense The Great Spirit of the native Americans to some degree as an intuition or feeling, but those who never walk in the quiet woods paying attention, or never stand in wonder and awe under a starlit night sky, as is becoming increasingly difficult to do in this decadent age, may, I suspect, lose their ability to tune in to the Great Spirit, which is to say their inner feelings and intuitions that point to their true nature. .

Thus I fear for the future, or would if I thought the global economy was going to survive much longer. Martin Heidegger expresses the same fear as early as the 1930’s, foretelling that Man will become so entranced by all his fancy new gadgets in this atomic age He would lose his abilities and forget He is an essentially meditative species.

"I started off in this reading Jiddu Krishnamurti, who is very wordy and analytical.

Yes he is. But a reliable teacher. I see it isn't only trees and armadillos from whom you learn.

"Hippyhead holy dogma :-) states that thought is just another mechanical function of the body, and so like all other mechanical functions it's an issue of ongoing life long management. You know, we don't go searching for some kind of food which will end our physical hunger forever."

We do if we have any sense. I'm with TLCD on the issue of suffering. The trick would be continue thinking but stop suffering. Abandoning thought to prevent suffering would be like cutting off your legs to avoid having to trim your toenails.

"That's interesting. Considering market research for such a book, I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. Any idea?
.
The trouble it causes would probably be in direct proportion of the number of Theravadans present. They deny the Middle Way teachings and give the sutras a different interpretation, and they get pretty hot under the collar when challenged. It is a disgrace that this split exists but Theravada pays no attention to metaphysics, which is to reason and logic, so nothing can be done about it. Even Nagarjuna could not unify the Sangha. . .

"Underlying state common to both life and death. If there's more that can be said about this from within the Buddhist perspective, interested here.

I'll reply with an essay. See below.

"Isn't a notion that we should somehow transcend suffering altogether just another form of rejecting "what is"? I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with such an agenda, but I'm more than happy to talk about it.

Oh no. In a sense suffering is a rejection of 'what is' since suffering is not truly real. It is not necessary to stop thinking, only to become detached, desireless, egoless etc. If you examine the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Mooji, Spira and other well-known teachers you'll see they do a lot of thinking and are quite good at it. I wonder if your view on this issue is result of listening to Krishnmurti, since he is an unusual teacher who many people find too analytical and wordy, or too steeped in thought. . , , , . , .

"To be clear, I'm not claiming no one has realized a cessation of suffering. There's no way I could know such a thing. I'm instead claiming that such a cessation would appear to be exceedingly rare.

A total and permanent cessation may be rare for this is the buddhahood, but a partial cessation is commonplace and one of most accessible of the benefits of the practice.

It seems unfair to some people that we are not all equally well-equipped to attain the cessation of suffering, or not equally close to it, but total cessation is enlightenment, and if it was easy to be enlightened the space-time universe wouldn't be here.

And thanks for your helpful contributions. As for suffering, I'm not sure I would have survived certain experiences over the last few years without the practice of detachment. I can't image how anybody gets through life with a conscious effort to detach from it.

As an initial simple practice Sadhguru advises to breath out saying 'I am not the body', and to breath out saying 'I am not the mind'. Simple as that. . .

My critique of religion would be that it typically attempts to address problems generated by thought by piling on more thought. That's kind of like an alcoholic trying to treat his disease with a case of scotch.

I'm beginning to grasp your view. It appears to be Buddhism. But there's something you may be forgetting.

Earlier you said that thought leads beyod thought, and that the purpose of philosophical analysis is to reveal the limits of analysis. This is exactly the value of it. You could equally say that analysis takes us beyond ideology.

Nagarjuna's analysis disposes of ideologies. His position It is often said to be not a view but a non-view. It reveals that all the ideas we can think of don't work. Thus it sweeps away all our conjectures and beliefs and replaces them with the idea that we are unable to formulate the truth in our mind, and the only way to know it would be to transcend the mind. .

However, this is no excuse for woolly thinking or the avoidance of analysis. N uses analysis to prove the limits of analysis, thus proving that Reality conforms to a very particular descriptive metaphysical theory. This is a neutral metaphysical theory, which is the formal theory required for non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy.

This is not an ideology but it is a very definite and identifiable description of Reality.

What worries me about your view is that it might undervalue analysis. Buddhist meditation includes analysis. For a person who wants to know whether Buddhism is worth doing before booking a cave in the Himalayas, analysis is all they have to help them. Does it make sense? Is it systematic and logically sound? What does it say about such and such an issue? How does it answer metaphysical questions? Does what it says about suffering make sense? Etc. A sceptical intellectual would want to know all this before risking going on a wild goose chase and taking up the practice. They should ask these questions, and they should expect an answer.

It is demonstrable that N's neutral position is the only one that survives analysis. Every other metaphjysical view gives rise to fatal contradictions. This is the value of analysis, that it proves Buddhist doctrine. This is the reason why Western philosophy has no fundamental theory and is a mess. The only idea that works is not allowed. If we do not do the analysis we will miss this fact and be unable to understand metaphysics, .

. . . .

Well, what have you got nearby? It seems good to find something within 30 minutes range or so, that way you can go often.

You don't imagine we still trees here in the UK do you? Hell, they would get in the way of railways and supermarkets. .

It's a koan, and yes, it can withstand a lot of thought, but best not.


I despair. Please go away. I've given it my best shot but enough is enough.

The source of the problem is not Buddhism, or Catholicism, or religion in general. The problem arises from that which all these things are made of. That's why such conflicts are universal, not limited to particular ideologies.

Just for a change I wouldn't agree. But the issue is too deep to delve into here.

I'll assume I misremebered and you;re right about 'kill'. It makes the point even stronger. You raise an important issue. . .

---"Sceptics will say - and it’s a fair point - that it’s said in the Theravada Buddhist sphere (S.E. Asia) that nobody has realised Nirvāṇa (nibanna) in centuries.".

I'm happy to speak about Mahayana and the Abhidharma but must carefully avoid speaking about Theravada. I believe it is not a correct interpretation. I would explain its poor performance by reference to its poor methodology. The crucial point on a philosophy forum is that Theravada does not have a metaphysical foundation and Mahayana does. This is what Nagarjuna demonstrates, and so Therevadans have little time for him,. . .

If you are in the Theravada tradition then my apologies for this comment, I don;t want to argue about anything. The viciousness of the argument between the two stands of Buddhism is frightening and nothing to do with philosophy.

The comments of Praxis about Buddhism make a lot more sense if they refer to the Theravada tradition, a point I had forgotten. . . .

How lucky you are. I always planned to emigrate to the forests of Canada but never got around to it. Nor did I ever get around to buying a double-decker bus and living in it, Us old hippies had some sensible ideas about life.

I simply have to say something about this discussion. It's the first one I've had here and as a veteran of philosophy forums it seems to me almost miraculously thoughtful and sensible, I'm excited to be talking to such interesting people. Even Praxis has been unable to disrupt it.

I've often considered writing a collaborative book in the form of an edited) internet discussion with all sorts of views represented as a commercial philosophical adventure, and this is the first forum I've visited in two decades where I've thought the idea might be practical. .

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority. — praxis

Oh hell. I'll break my rule.

You don't seem to grasp that Buddhism does not rely on authority. It expressly forbids a reliance on authority. Buddhist would consider it absurd to rely on authority. It is all about becoming our own authority.and about nothing else. An authoritative knowledge of the true nature of Reality is the entire point and purpose of it. We may choose to trust the teachings or the teacher, but we'll never understand either properly until we know they are true, and everybody knows this.

Your assumption that only the Buddha can be relied on as an authority is ridiculous. He must be turning in his grave.It's as silly as the idea that Jesus is the the only son of God. There is an old saying that when we meet the Buddha on the road we should spit on him. It's a saying the can withstand a lot of thought. . ,

If it is not a secret I'd be interested to know where your woodland retreat is. I imagine its somewhere near Walden Pond. .

This all makes sense, and represents my view too. I think we're just working on a translation from Buddhist language to armadillo worship language. :-)

Yes! It's the same language. If we we have the shamanistic impulse we don't need books. Black Elk of the Dakotas tells us that when the white man arrived in their lands what amazed the tribes most was that they got their religion out of a book and argued about it like lawyers. This was incomprehsible to them.

You explain the religion issue very well. I should make clear that in my view likewise Buddhism is a religion. It would also be a science, a philosophy, an art, a practice and a medicine..

. . .

I give up. I will not respond again.

Likewise, thanks for being open to an apology. .

I cannot uderstand why you make no effort to understand Buddhism. It is all about discovering what is true. It is not about being told!!! If you do not understand this then you understand exactly nothing about mysticism. . .

Why not try to learn? What;s the point of arguing with a Buddhist about what Buddhism is and is-not?
Have you no humility at all? How can you learn when you believe you know it all already? You cannot expect people here to keep responding to your comments when you invariably ignore their replies.

Nobody is attacking you personally. They just cannot see any point in your approach.and find it wearisome. You could change this in an instant if you chose to stop imagining Buddhist doctrine and practice is so useless that even you can find fault with it, before even learning what it is. .

The fact that you call Hippyhead a nutcase is a reflection on you and has nothing to with him I find he speaks nothing but good sense. You have an unusual opportunity here since there are a few posters who know what they're talking about. I would suggest taking advantage of this opportunity. . . . .

Thanks for sharing this! I think I'm understanding a little more of what you're saying; it's a bit tricky for me to get through the technical language. It would probably not be a bad idea to read up on Nagarjuna. Do you have any recommended reading as an intro?

You clearly know a lot about many of the issues surrounding the practice, but the logic is not often studied by practitioners since it is not interesting if our goal is soteriological - as the Buddha points out. It is a little studied area of knowledge.

The academic literature on Nagarjuna is best avoided in my opinion. It usually just massively complicates the issues. It generally treats Nagarjuna's logic as if it is unusual or idiosyncratic in some way, when in fact it is just ordinary logic. The most straightforward and easiest introduction I've found is The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way/ by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso. This deals with what Nagarjuna proves and the form of his argument. It does not explain the logical issues. . . .

For the logical issues there's an essay here that covers the ground. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html

If true, then the vast majority of the God debate (all sides of it) is built upon a foundation of sand.

Exactly. Meister Eckhart dismisses the argument as prattle. Complete waste of time.

As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought.

Yes. This is roughly what the mystics discover. Thus suffering is both real and unreal, since when we transcend psychology we transcend suffering. Your vview would be incorrect only insofar as you reify the intellect and psychology. But Kant notes that the source of the intellect must be a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category, and this idea takes us beyond psychology and suffering. .

I get that typical Western thought seeks simplistic dualistic answers such as the classic "exists or not" paradigm of the God debate. I've argued against such dualism extensively all over the form, using space as the example of a phenomena which transcends "exists or not". So I'm surely receptive to what you're saying. It's possible that all that's needed here is more translation from your style of language to mine. Also possible I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg, so keep going if you wish.

I realise you;re almost on board with all of this otherwise I wouldn't be putting in the time. The trouble is that this is a technical logical issue and some grasp of Aristotle's dialectic and 'laws of thought' is required. A practitioner has no need to bother with all of this. They can by-pass the logical issues by leaping straight to truth and understanding. But a philosophical understanding requires getting ones hands grubby and dealing with the intellectual details. . .

These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible — FrancisRay

Confused by this. Remember, no philosophy education here.


We can go no further until this is clear. Take the question 'Is this bicycle male or female?' Both answers are absurd so it is undecidable. The question embodies an assumption that renders it so.

'Dialectical' logic is binary. Its job is to decide between a thesis and its counter-thesis. The thesis may be 'Socrates is wise' or 'God exists'. In each case the system has to decide whether the thesis is true or false. Analysis shows that metaphysical questions take the form of 'Does two plus two equal three or five?'. Thus they are undecidable. The answer is 'neither'', and we are offered no third alternative. .

But they are not intractable. The answer is clearly 'four'. They become intractable when for some reason we refuse to accept 'four' as an answer and demand an answer to the question as stated. Thus Western thinkers find metaphysical questions both undecidable and intractable, while 'mystical' philosophers find them undecidable and easily answerable. They are answered by denying their extreme answers and endorsing a third alternative.

This logical issue is what divides Western dualism from mysticism and non-dualism. In university philosophy the undecidability of these questions is a barrier-to-knowledge and a frustrating mystery. It prevents philosophers from solving or understanding philosophical problems. The solution is easy but it is mysticism, so ideology wins and metaphysics is declared incomprehensible,

It's all tosh. When one adopts the Middle Way view metaphysical problems immediately evaporate. All of them have a third answer.

So, if you ask a mystic 'Do we have freewill' the answer will be yes and no. If you ask, 'Do we exist' the answer will be the same. These anwers ask us to reconsider the categories of thought. If Heraclitus is right to say 'We exist and exist-not', then this sends us back to examine our categories of thought. The answer transcends the categories, just as does Reality itself.

So Wordsworth's 'spirit that rolls through all things', which no doubt you sense as you walk through the woods, leads us beyond dialectical logic to Unity and to the idea that reality is 'advaita' or 'not-two'.. This is called 'non-dualism' because it takes us beyond the dualism that renders metaphysical questions intractable (and not just undecidable).

If you want to grasp this issue better I may need to refer you elsewhere to an essay or two. I'm enjoying the discussion but there may be too much ground to cover to get to the end of it here. Simple as it is, it took my five years to get to the bottom of this logical issue when I started out. So don't feel bad if it doesn't immediately make sense.
. . . , ,. . .






. . . . .

Good grief. Do you not ever listen? By your defintion of religion Buddhism is not one. I toid you this some time ago. You clearly know little about Buddhism so why are you arguing? Why do you even care? You're spoiling an interesting discussion. .

Yes, you;re right, it was useless. I was just frustrated at how complex the issues are made by this sort of approach, but I should have engaged with it properly. My bad.

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.

---"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. . . .



.

I bow to an enlightened being.

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. . .

.

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. .

"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?