tobes wrote:perhaps LL can respond
I suspect LL doesn't want to bother getting involved. This discussion has fairly little to do with day-to-day practice, which, admirably, seems to be LL's focus.
tobes wrote:does the removal of philosophy from practice involve the cessation of concepts?
I'm not of that opinion. Besides, why would we want to get rid of concepts? It's the clinging and subscription to concepts that are the problem.
tobes wrote:If this is not the case (and I am assuming it is not, because such a cessation can only occur upon a direct realisation of shunyata), then what is the relationship between concepts and practice?
Can you really claim that there is no relation there?
If there is a relation, then, I think you have to accept than your practice is informed and guided by concepts, and thus, is deeply philosophical in nature.
Otherwise, how do you know what you're doing? Why are you doing what you're doing? What values underpin your actions? Where do they come from? How do they inform your practice? Are you really free from: values, understanding, discernment, thinking??
It is one thing to think that one is free from concepts, quite another to actually be free from concepts.
So, I think the absurdity is on the side of the claim that practice can be unrelated to philosophy, at least until the first Bhumi.
Again, you're assuming everyone is working with the same definition of philosophy as you. My whole issue with the OP and much of this discussion is that there's this underlying assumption that we're working with some supposed objective and inflexible definition.
Let me offer this up: Philosophies operate as matrices founded on points of reference, which are theories. The Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh said something along the lines of, "impermanence isn't a theory, it's a way of living."