From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Mar 24 09:57:31 EST 1992
Article 4614 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self the buddhist way
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.162823.5291@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1992 16:28:23 GMT

brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:

> Here's the bottom line.  Do you think that an idea that involves a
> contradiction or relies on an arbitrary base ought to be considered to
> be true?  If not, then you are "tainted by westernism" and must agree
> with me that this is the one and only method of knowledge.  If not,
> then your ARE an irrational person and I can see no reason to bother
> communicating with you any longer, since you will prove to be immune
> to rational argumentation, and that is the only kind I care to offer
> or consider.

Brian, I think that you haven't come close to understanding what
people have been trying to say to you about Buddhism. It isn't
irrational, and it isn't a rejection of reason. Buddhism does not rely
on any arbitrary premises; it relies on empirical observations about
the nature of existence. The reason that some people consider Buddhism
to be a rejection of rationality (and perhaps some Buddhists refer to
it as this) is because it rejects what many people consider to be a
"common sense" view of the meaning and purpose of life. I will agree
with you that there is no reason for you to continue to argue on this
subject, but it isn't because the people you are arguing with are
impervious to rational argument.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


