maestro,
DQ: It is the basis of all logic and consciousness. When a person's thinking conforms perfectly with A=A, when there are no contradictions or assumptions contained therein, it cannot be rationally challenged.
M: You are saying if philosophy is logically consistent, it cannot be challenged. But what if it is logically consistent but is not supported empirically. It can be challenged on those grounds.
Only if it makes empirically-testable assertions - which, if it consisted of wise thought from top to bottom, it wouldn't.
The great truths of life aren't empirically-testable, but they do apply to everything within the empirical world and beyond out of logical necessity.
Thus the axioms of the philosophy (and deductions thereof) are the interesting bits, assuming it is logically consistent.
Wise thinking doesn't use any axioms or assumptions, other than A=A.
(I guess your axiom is cause and effect. Which satisfies consistency and empiricism. Though cause and effect could be tricky to define, where does the cause end and effect begin? )
Cause and effect is a logical truth which arises out of the very nature of what it is to be a "thing". In other words, it is logically impossible to imagine a "thing" without causes without falling into self-contradiction.
Where does a cause end and an effect begin? That's a good question. In a deeper sense, there is no beginning or end to anything, which means there aren't really "things" in Nature. And when there are no "things" in Nature, causality becomes superfluous.
Causality is only a reality when "things" are a reality.
DQ: 2 and 3 are false. Neither of us are perfect sages, and thus we are still vulnerable to falling away from the path, even if only subtly.
M: What do you mean by perfect sage.
A perfect sage is someone who is effortlessly conscious of the nature of Reality at all times, without interruption, and never gets taken in by the core illusion of "maya", not even for an instant. By contrast, an imperfect sage is only conscious of Reality intermittently.
An imperfect sage fully understands the nature of Reality and can talk about it with ease, but his own karma is yet to be entirely burned away and he still falls foul of subtle forms of delusion. These subtle delusions are more to do with habit and emotion. They are not intellectual in nature.
Why should a sage be not subject to cause and effect but follow some arbitrary mental model of perfection? There is inconsistency here.
Being without delusion is what defines a perfect sage. So if a person is still experiencing delusion, then he isn't a perfect sage, by definition. But whether he is a perfect sage or not, he is still fully subject to cause and effect either way.
-
