I must be missing something?

That’s a healthy view to hold!

Keep in mind that the Buddha’s teachings in the Nikāyas and the Suttapiṭaka as a whole are much more closely associated to the psychology of the individual mind rather than philosophy. You can’t practice philosophy, just debate and contemplate it. At least that’s how I understand it.

Since this forum is focused on EBT I don’t think the Abidhamma,which B. Bodhi describes as the ‘philosophical psychology of Buddhism,’ is representative of what the Buddha taught due to it’s nearly endless metaphysical expositions and most likely being composed much later.

The Buddha’s approch to mental development is actually practical and testible. He is always telling his listeners to experiment and look for results. Don’t take him by his word alone. What useful results come from philosophy besides intellectual concepts? Not much practicality really.

I think you should keep this in mind when examining/comparing the dhammas taught by the Buddha to other people’s approaches .

Metta :heart:


Yes, the Dhamma is an invitation to come and see, leading inward, to be known by the wise each for themselves. It seems difficult for some to realise that there is ‘actually’ more going on in the realisation of the teachings than concepts. Insights that can be expressed through words - and in other ways - but not ‘captured’ in ideas.

Without this lived dimension of the teachings it is impossible to truly understand what the Buddha tried to share with us.

1 Like

I would say there is insufficient basis is the early Buddhist texts for attributing either of these views to the Buddha. That’s why subsequent Buddhist philosophers were able to develop the ideas in those texts in so many different directions. The texts are indeterminate.

I think the Buddha was primarily interested in teaching a path to nibbana, which is a fundamental and liberating change in the way we respond to our experience, not a cluster of speculative doctrines about what that experience might indicate about the workings of the cosmos. We do have a clear record of him telling his followers that dwelling on questions about what one was in the past or will be in the future is “unwise attention.”

The Buddha taught things that are incommensurate with philosophical realism and idealism.

Your right there is an insufficient basis. In fact, there is no basis at all for forming that conclusion.

Therefore, if you are interested in discussing the teachings of the Buddha, I am all ears. If you want to share your interest in philosopical realism please count me out.

If you want to engage in a realist critique of the teachings of the Buddha then, why not start a thread on the topic.

After getting this cleared up we can then take a close look at what you have to say about the Buddha’s teachings and, we can compare notes.

I can predict ahead of time that nothing wholesome would come of such a discussion with you.

@DKervick that could be true, but if you feel that way maybe you should just ignore the thread instead of demeaning @laurence with such a disdainful comment.


1 Like

Laurence has been harassing and border-line stalking me on this site for months, and rapidly derailing every conversation I try to participate in with kneejerk contrariness and long-winded rambles, to the point where I now am barely able to engage here at all. He also addresses me in a prying, needling, insinuating, and slyly aggressive manner which makes me uncomfortable about his ability to manage boundaries.

My initial contribution to this thread was apt, objective and impersonal. But as usual, I have come to regret even venturing that small effort.

I am new to this forum. Unaware of your situation or circumstances regarding @laurence.
Recommend maybe communicating this with @sujato if you haven’t already.

I certainly don’t want to get involved in any friction or controversy.



Sorry to lose my patience and drag you into it.


@DKervick, @Laurence thank you both for being in my life. You have both taught me much just being who you are. :heart::pray: