SteRo wrote: ↑
Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:39 pm
Even asserting "this is a metaphysical claim" in the context of seeing mere words is an extreme view far off the middle way teachings of the Buddha and only shows that the one asserting such hasn't practiced enough yet and misconstrues the Buddha's middle way teaching as a philosophical view in the context of use of language.
Ah, you've rethought your earlier decision not to converse with me - good!
An assertion that a claim is metaphysical is merely a point about what sort of a claim it is. All such claims are in the context of "seeing mere words", and rely on nothing more than an understanding of what a metaphysical claim is. For example:
"Universal qualities are objectively real"
"Moral statements cannot be falsified"
"There is no God"
- these are all metaphysical claims, and asserting that has no bearing whatsoever on the "middle way teachings of the Buddha"; or how much practice one has done; or whether one has misconstrued any teaching of the Buddha whatsoever. Some philosophers rest a large part of their entire work on an ability to correctly discern metaphysics. Hume, Kant, and Ayer spring to mind. How is their ability to do so at all vitiated by their lack of Buddhist practice?
If you disagree, could you please state briefly what you consider a metaphysical claim to be, and what bearing you think an understanding of the Majjhimā-patipadā
has on one's ability to correctly discern such a claim?