From: oldernow@dev.null   
      
   On 2025-04-07, Richmond  wrote:   
      
   >>> Only if you require proof of everything. But actually, making   
   >>> assumptions is quite normal. There is no reason you can't assume that   
   >>> sense evidence is a source of knowledge, without being able to prove   
   >>> it. But what you have done is said that it is problematic to manage   
   >>> without it and therefore someone else must prove it is false. How could   
   >>> someone prove than sense evidence is not a source of knowledge? by   
   >>> proving that no piece of knowledge was ever derived from sense evidence?   
   >>   
   >> The proof is in the believing.   
   >>   
   >> Or so "I" believe, at any rate....   
   >   
   > The reader observed finding this, which the writer might like:   
   >   
   > https://archive.org/details/NagarjunaTheFundamentalWisdomOfThe   
   iddleWay/page/n51/mode/2up?view=theater   
   >   
   > "Not only does suffering not exist   
   > In any of the fourfold ways:   
   > No external entity exists   
   > In any of the fourfold ways."   
      
   How *DARE* you attempt to peddle solipsist tripe in these   
   sacred, hallowed textural grounds!   
      
   --   
   NPC's dutifully ignored.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)