Timeline for Linking Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness through papanca
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2018 at 17:27 | comment | added | user13375 | Ah, if that is what it means then I would disagree and say that right there is an example of reification to be refuted :) | |
| Aug 29, 2018 at 16:21 | comment | added | Andriy Volkov♦ | I think "it is what it is" means "it's ontological existence is undeniable, regardless of how we experience it". However, let's consider the example of a bush that looks like a dog. What we thought was "it" was actually a hole between the bush leaves plus the shadow on the bush - the "it" was never a single object to begin with. | |
| Aug 29, 2018 at 14:05 | comment | added | user13375 | @bodhihammer maybe the phrase does convey information namely, "further explanation will not be efficacious" | |
| Aug 29, 2018 at 1:43 | comment | added | user13375 | Well, that is pretty close to this question isn’t it? buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28897/… | |
| Aug 29, 2018 at 1:20 | comment | added | ruben2020♦ | What I meant was that an observer looks at something and says "that's a dog". But if there is no observer, then does it matter what anything is or isn't? | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 21:34 | comment | added | user13383 | It is common for Zen to do it this way, for example not to look for specific explanation but say "it is exactly this" or "exactly that", coming from the fact that things are as they are, in order to destroy obsessive, conceptual mind. It is still a good explanation, just as good as any - see what I did there. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 20:33 | comment | added | user13375 | "A dog is a dog because the observer reified it as such." -> I'm not sure what this means. "It simply is what it is" -> This is a tautology and thus only trivially true. I don't think it conveys much information. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 19:52 | comment | added | Andriy Volkov♦ | "But if we remove all reification, then is it still a dog or not? Well, it simply is what it is" -- except "it" is not "it". When you are talking about All, you can say "this is what this is" - but not when talking about individual objects - because drawing the boundaries between objects and then reifying them as something intrinsic is an important part of the objectification process. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 17:46 | comment | added | ruben2020♦ | A dog is a dog because the observer reified it as such. The observer matched what he sensed to his mental concept of a dog. This is also called perception, isn't it? But if we remove all reification, then is it still a dog or not? Well, it simply is what it is. | |
| Aug 28, 2018 at 17:19 | history | answered | user13375 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |