White Lotus wrote:
What is the purpose of analysis, if there are so many different readings of any given situation. Can analysis find any kind of truth, is not every subjectivity a form of objective reality.
does analysis require 'this is' and 'this is not', and may there not be disagreement on what is and is not?
White Lotus. xxx
If we spend any time at all trying to understand the 4NT I guess we are already analysing.
However, like most things, I guess it is a matter of balance.
For example, we may read or receive a teaching, try to make progress through meditation in verifying it, and then analyse our experiences, perhaps with the help of a guru.
If we don't analyse at all, how can we know we are making progress? If we spend too much time analysing, we may make none, LOL
A successful company director once told me he never spent time analysing details. He said that it was necessary (pardon the wording) to take the 'anal' out of 'analysis'.
Access to a guru is most helpful, in helping us to identify our progress, and what is worthy of focus to help make progress. So doing some of the analysis for us.
However, IMHO, 'what is' and 'what is not' can only come from our own practice leading to a conviction rather than a 'view'. And with a conviction derived from personal experience, the 'views' of others are unimportant - unless they are teaching you: I like the Japanese word 'Sensei' which I think is loosely translated as 'one who has gone before'.
Personal 'reality' is something I see as unique to an individual. There are many 'views' such as Yogacara or Madhyamaka Prasangika, but only though our meditation and experience can we form a 'reality'.
Having a conviction and an acepted 'reality' should we cling to it? If it is virtuous and useful to our path, I think it's OK.