Sanded, Un-sanded, or Epoxy?

A review of the basic classifications of grout include: 1) sanded (for gaps of 1/8" of an inch or smaller); 2) un-sanded (for gaps larger than 1/8"); and 3) epoxy, which is considered the 'ideal' solution since it is much stronger than the other two and is also stain and water resistant. The parallel (metaphorical) between this natural use of material in order to fill a space that is both functional and aesthetic can be drawn into a rather lengthy discussion. For instance, the pull between the realization of emptiness begs the attention of consequences not unlike the Buddhist theory as presented in this blog. After the determination that a gap exists (emptiness), several consequences might autonomically brave to the front. Grout being the most obvious vehicle of delivery, one must decide which of the types of consequence are best suited for endurance of the gap, for the use and type of service of the gap as well as for the ideal appearance. While emptiness is the ideal form of existence since it indicates that destruction is not possible, it is also the state of disjointed and separate tiles. And, let's get practical here, should one wish to have a kitchen floor free from detritus and various food particles then a healthy and stringent vacuum policy would have to become routine at the end of each foray into the culinary arts. In other words, it is possible to have a semi-permanent gap between tiles resistant to the cracking and staining of age and use, but requiring much maintenance. Consequences also endure should a decision be made to 'fill the gap'.

Let us say that we fear distance and the emotional voids between each of our non-connecting spaces (in other words we want a small gap of 1/8th of an inch or less between tiles), then we might benefit from a cost-risk ratio analysis along the Buddhist front. Should we fill the space between with un-sanded grout then we would spend slightly less money, slightly less effort, and have slightly less clean-up. "Hey, this sounds great!" one might think at this point. However, let's take a moment to reflect on the Prasangika view of consequence. It is the perception that a correct understanding of any absurd consequence would be the proper tact. So, when considering the un-sanded grout option, a
Prasangika approach might lead the thinker towards an understanding that there are the following possible issues with that medium: 1) unsanded grout is less strong and more likely to crack and fall out of the empty space, 2) it is more likely to stain and therefore need stain resistant chemicals, and 3) it has a lower tolerance for climate change and water erosion over time. Now the Prasangika approach does not mean that we would state these facts out loud as we have here and then develop the plan of addressing them. Instead that is actually the Svatantrika way. No, the Prasangika way would be to intuitively understand that these consequences exist, and therefore there is no need to state them outright. Thus, the plan of action is implied. So, in order to help decide which grout tactic would best suit your latest kitchen project, one would first have to decide which of these two methods of thought best match his or her own empty space (the one behind the glabella).