I am reading Bradley's Logic. This deals with the question of change and non-change, and particularly with the question how I can have knowledge of past and future if my perception is confined to the present. Bradley's solution (which is inadequate, though extremely interesting) is by way of inference—we have immediate appearance, and from this we infer reality, though we can never be quite certain of it. But, as you will have seen, it is possible, if one has assumed the Idealist position (which is a mistake,[a] though a full elucidation would take us into fundamental structure), to find another solution by mis-applying the Sutta teachings of anicca/(dukkha)/anattā. Bradley's work has enabled me to see the situation in greater detail, though it still remains the same in essentials—'Buddhist monks saying, pointing to an object, that the object is not there'.
Footnotes:
[7.a] There is no opposition between 'appearance' and 'reality'. [Back to text]
