New answers tagged

0

People might discuss what exists based on the agreement that something exists. Then Decarte said "i think therefore i am". This is an ambiguous statement because the existence of thinking does not necessarily mean that the object of thought is as real as the thinking itself and repudiates thinking. It can be said that the ideation of 'i am' there ...


1

A way to think about this is that in the context of the doctrine of self then the Buddha is real but we won't be able to pin down the Buddha as a truth or reality and it is therefore a false doctrine precisely because we can't pin a Buddha down as a truth or reality. What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord.&...


-1

I think the question is concerning 'Conventional truth' because in the ultimate truth existence and reality have no meaning. However, in the Conventional truth, all conventionally existing things are also real and there are no unreal conventionally existing things. Conventional truth that which is conventionally real and existing Conventional falsehood that ...


2

There are 2 objects of knowing... Reality (yathabhūta) - the existent without imagination. Imagination (sammati,smaññā) - the conception which appearing only while imagining. We are knowing both switching rapidly. Trillion times of mind moment in a second, there are many moment knowing realities and many moment imagining imaginations switching rapidly. ...


2

In the conventional truth, mirages exist and are real as a mirage but not real as water. Dreams exist and are real as dream but not as a play in a theater. So there is nothing which can be said conventionally existing but unreal because it is real in that way it is called to exist. Conventionally existent Buddhas alleviate the conventionally existing ...


0

This definition isn't the most rigorous I could give, but it is workable - I think - and may help others navigate around the thickets of uncomfortable emotions this question might bring up. Maybe others can help improve these definitions! Exists: Something which can be known (perceived/conceived) to an awareness. Real: Something that exists, but is not ...


1

The Pali suttas are almost the same as Mahayana agamas in Sanskrit, and so would be on-topic as Mahayana-relevant content. From DN 17: See, Ānanda! All those conditioned phenomena have passed, ceased, and perished. So impermanent are conditions, so unstable are conditions, so unreliable are conditions. This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, ...


0

Whether we can differentiate the word exist from real is only for the mind's playground, and that is the key word: the mind is that which creates the idea of existing and the idea of what is real from its concept of itself as the body looking out into the concept of the world. It's like an illusion looking back onto itself for a remedy to that illusion only ...


-1

"Does reality exist?" Ultimately no, it doesn't. This question and the answers it has provoked have predictably stirred some uncomfortable feelings and thoughts. If one looks really hard at why this question makes people squirm (even Buddhists trained in the dhamma and the dharma who've literally been reading sutta after sutra giving myriad ...


1

Quoted below is Candrakīrti's Lucid Words - A Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Wisdom. Perhaps Mr. Rovelli is misrepresenting Nāgārjuna’s teaching. True dharma is the middle way. Those who see existence or non-existence don't see peace. 5 Analysis of the Elements (dhātus) 5.1. The space-element does not at all exist prior to its defining characteristic; if it ...


0

The reality is real in every right perspective, but it is exist only when it arising only. The reality arises and vanish immediately more than trillions time (10¹²) in a second. It isn't exist before and after that, but it is real, if the thinker can think of it by the right perspective, causes and effects. Similitude: you are not sleeping now because you ...


1

He says reality doesn’t exist Does he, or is that a paraphrase by the reviewer? And if he does, is he simplifying for the reader? Or trolling a bit, maybe trying to challenge the reader by saying something edgy? The reason physicists have been led astray by bonkers theories in the 100 years since Helgoland is because they can’t bear the thought of not being ...


-1

I'll try to answer based on the Pali Canon and then connect it back to Madhyamaka. Using MN 1 below, the Buddha describes how an untaught ordinary person sees reality. From MN 1: “Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled ...


0

The reason physicists have been led astray by bonkers theories in the 100 years since Helgoland is because they can’t bear the thought of not being real. This is cute because it can and probably should be interpreted as an inability to accept the truth due to being yoked to the doctrine of self which is at odds with the Buddha's dharma. This ideation about ...


Top 50 recent answers are included