sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) (08/25/87)
In article <150@aiva.ed.ac.uk> jeff@uk.ac.ed.aiva (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article <94@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes: > >>In article <2495@ames.arpa> yamo@orville.UUCP (Michael J. Yamasaki) writes: >>>All philosophy is not Western, nor is it logical, [...] >>>Please explain in the context of logic the notion of no mind in Zen >>>Buddhism or the Tao. Are these not Philosophy? > >>When you put it that way, I'd say "No. They are religion." I think parts of >>Buddhism are philosophical and -- guess what? -- these are the rational parts, >>not the mystical parts. > >To me, this seems to be almost begging the question. If you are >willing to call only the rational parts philosophical, then you will >of course find no non-logical philosophy in Buddhism. But the >question is whether philosophy should be so narrowly defined, not >whether Buddhism fits a given notion of philosophy ... > >That is: the distinction between the philosophic and religious aspects >of Buddhism doesn't match all that neatly with that between rational >(logical) and mystical. I guess the question is whether there *is* any legitimate criterion for distinguishing between religion and philosophy. If not, then linguistic analysis is a form of religion and Jim Jones' cult was a form of philosophical society. To me it always seemed that the use of reason and logic distinguished the two, but I'm willing to bow to someone else's notion if there is a better criterion for separating them. I do think, though, that that criterion needs to be offered. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge