Arguing with myself about how hard a line to take on naturalism. Here’s a 2005 take from @willbuckingham : http://www.thinkbuddha.org/article/20/hurrah-for-materialismpart-ii …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness maybe the controversy is intentionally introduced so we can disabuse ourselves from the category error of imputing "existence"?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffryGonzalez
@JeffryGonzalez But it seems that it is those who insist gods exist who need to explain what they mean by “exist,” if there’s doubt.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness anybody that would take such a literalist approach to reality is sort of missing the point of the dharma, I'd say.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffryGonzalez
@JeffryGonzalez Not sure what you mean. “Gods literally exist” is what Reggie Ray seems to be saying.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness but also all phenomena of duality. Your toaster, for example.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffryGonzalez
@JeffryGonzalez So gods and toasters are both existent and non-existent, but are they existent and non-existent in exactly the same way?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness as aspects of innate mind, they are the same, yes.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JeffryGonzalez
@JeffryGonzalez Yeah, but the issue is not whether they exist as aspects of mind—no one has a problem with that—but externally.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness As usual, my problem is when we predicate "reality" on conventional mind. A proto-positivist dharma? No thanks!3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@JeffryGonzalez But I don’t think this has anything to do with “conventional mind.” Possible danger of using that as a label to dismiss…
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.