ABSTRACT
Many of the metaphysical theories of Buddhism must appear remote, inaccessible and elusive to the average reader who is unprepared for them. This is because they presuppose a close and long-standing familiarity with the laws of the spiritual universe and with the rhythms of a spiritual life, not to mention a rare capacity for prolonged disinterested contemplation. In addition, Buddhist thinkers make a number of tacit assumptions which are explicitly rejected by modern European philosophers. The first, common to nearly all Indian, 9 as distinct from European, ‘scientific’, thought treats the experiences of Yoga as the chief raw material for philosophical reflection. Secondly, all ‘perennial’ (as against ‘modern’) philosophers, agree on the hierarchical structure of the universe, as shown in (a) the distinction of a ‘triple world’ and (b) of degrees of ‘reality’, and (c) in the establishment of a hierarchy of insights dependent on spiritual maturity. Thirdly, all religious (as against a-religious) philosophies (a) use ‘numinous’ as distinct from ‘profane’ terms, and (b) treat revelation as the ultimate source of all valid knowledge. This gives us no fewer than six tacit assumptions which are unlikely to be shared by the majority of my readers. Since they define the range and context within which Buddhist thinking is relatively valid and significant, I must say a few words about each of them one by one.
