[ An excerpt from a recent message sent to a wonderful friend,
relating to a discussion we'd had at Extreme Pizza in San Rafael,
California, USA .... ]

A psychological observation (not a philosophical argument!): I think
there is a niche or archetype in the human mind that longs for
certainty about the most important things. It is this niche
(methinks) that the Ontological Argument was hoped to fill. (Whatever
philosophical niches it may have been hoped to fill, this, I think, is
the PSYCHOLOGICAL niche that prompted the explorations that resulted
in that argument.) I think Kant's critique of the argument -- as I
understand it, that it errs in supposing 'existence' to be an ordinary
trait, like 'redness' or 'roundness' -- is compelling.

My reading of Sri Shankaracharya (often referred to simply as
"Shankara" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Sankara ) is many years
old, but many of his basic thoughts have stayed with me.

I have heard it said that Shankara (ca. 800 CE) had articulated the
essence of Descartes' "Cogito" 800 years before Descartes, and I seem
to recall thinking this correct as I read his work.

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:22:49 -0800, Berkeley Brett wrote:

For the most part it has.

On Dec 1, 3:22�pm, Berkeley Brett gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 1, 7:22 am, Berkeley Brett gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with you in part, ZerkonX -- but I hope we will implement this
knowledge in practice!

In the Dhammapada, a sacred writing of the Buddhist tradition, it is
said, "For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases
by love, this is an old rule." -The Dhammapada I:5 (circa 5th century
BCE: http://www.textlibrary.com/download/dhammapa.txt ) Even so long
ago, this was an "old rule" :) It has been bouncing around the
collective neurons of Humankind for a very long time. Yet still we
see needless hostilities so often.

Even so, it is my hope that we will learn this rule *in practice* and
will find ourselves in a more peaceful world!

Thanks for your thought.

Quite true, pjmutn...!

Western philosophy is steeped in glorious realizations as is Eastern.
I am perpetually amazed at the insights of the ancient Greek thinkers,
among many, many others.

But sometimes it's nice to take a look at things from an alternate
perspective, I think -- a sort of "binocular" approach to inquiry.
Nature has endowed us with two eyes, and with these, we've developed a
sense of depth which we would not otherwise have.

The analogy is not perfect, but I think there is a "philosophical
depth" that can come from studying great thinkers from very different
traditions.

Hope you are in good spirits....

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mr. Jones!

You are quite correct in detecting what seems to be a contradiction in
my thought.

I prefer to think of it as a paradox!

And to my thinking, this paradox is most comprehensively addressed (in
not resolved) in the achintya-bheda-abheda tattva philosophy of Sri
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

This would be the closest position to my own feelings on these
matters.

That's perhaps the best philosophical approach I've seen. But the
best *practical* approach, in my view, comes from the historical
Buddha (as I have interpreted him here)....

The relationship of the individual soul to the Ultimate is naturally a
subject of great curiosity. Many philosophers have addressed it, and
even the greatest mystics, thinkers, and sages have not achieved
consensus on the subject.

On Dec 2, 6:38 pm, Berkeley Brett gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for this very thoughtful reply, John!

I haven't had time to do it justice (in the form of a reply), but I
hope to do so as soon as time allows.

You raise many interesting points.

Just one minor point: as I understand (or misunderstand) him, Kant has
a notion of freedom that is a bit different from our ordinary sense of
that term. What many call freedom, Kant may have regarded as caprice
or whim. True Kantian freedom (as I understand it) consists in acting
in a unencumbered way. The drunk is not free because he is encumbered
by intoxication. The raging man is not free because he is encumbered
by anger. When one is not affected by such obstacles, one may act
freely. Often enough, free action is entirely predictable (at least
on many rational matters).

Hardly an adequate response, but just a few quick thoughts.

On Dec 3, 1:45�am, pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote: