New answers tagged

0

That is a highly eccentric use of analytic and empirical, that can only cause confusion. Analytic truth typically means truth by definition, or from definition. Empirical, from observation, or events. Both depend on causes and conditions, and their results lack inherent nature. "To think ‘it is,’ is eternalism, To think ‘it is not,’ is nihilism: Being ...


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 ...


0

I think "Empty" here refers to, there is not an impermanent, unchanging essence, core, object or self that can independently (not depending on any conditions) exist. All existences (as oppose to "Empty") of object/self subjected to changes and impermanent nature, thus no one can hold on to the object/self, and decide by their wish "...


0

The Pali suttas are almost the same as Mahayana agamas in Sanskrit, and so would be on-topic as Mahayana-relevant content. From Dona Sutta, the Buddha calls himself "awakened": "Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in ...


1

The point is that when we look out into the world and we see (say) a tree, a dog, a car, a white cloud, or whatever you like, what we're actually perceiving is color, shading, texture, apparent movement... We receive this great wash of ambiguous sensation, and in our heads we establish boundaries, conjure up structures and patterns, intuit relationships, and ...


1

It might be possible for you to gain the understanding you need from these two powerful excerpts. The first is from the Phena Sutta; the second is from chapter 32 of the Diamond Sutra. The Phena Sutta Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the ...


0

Fwiw Buddha compared sensuality to a dream as well. I don't think this tenet of the Dhamma is central to it because it is still open to be interpreted in favor of an eternal & underlying consciousness doing the dreaming. As i see it, the latter point not being thus interpreted is the central tenet and what separates the Dhamma from eternalism.


0

But dreams are real—when you are dreaming, you are really dreaming. But their contents are not (always) true. They are like a movie, which is something you can watch, but the movie’s contents—the actors, and the action, and even often the setting—are not true. This comparison just like is not saying two things are identical, it’s comparing one thing—our life ...


-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

You're mistaken if you think that Zeno's paradox is in contradiction, or as you said in the comment section, disprove the zooming-in method of teaching you noted. Read Shantideva quoted below and you will see clearly where the method ends. It is not about zooming into to subatomic level to deny the inherent existence of a flower. It is also not about ...


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 ...


15

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :) You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right ...


-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

Is lack of inherent existence the same as 'not real'? Yes


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 ...


2

Richard Feynman, who definitely lived in the post-calculus world, once pondered flowers down to the atomic level and beyond. Feynman would also gladly point out the vast emptiness between those very atoms. Importantly, Feynman continuously pokes at conventional perceptions of a flower as being "real" and notes that the perception of an aggregate is ...


-1

"First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox?" Notwithstanding, that this is incorrect... have a look at this for a very modern interpretation of Emptiness that is actually rooted in some of the most ...


1

That's because there is no logic to it. Emptiness isn't apprehended by the discursive mind. It is perceived directly. One could roughly equate it to smelling. How could you logically describe the sense of smell to someone who hasn't had that perception? Any explanation you could offer would ultimately fall short. Buddhist philosophy isn't a philosophy ...


3

Usually,it goes like this - the flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you ...


5

I'll try to explain this from the Theravada perspective, which I think is more or less the same as Madhyamaka emptiness, once you analyze it deeply. In addition to this answer, please also see "Linking Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness through papanca". From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read: "I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, ...


3

Part of the "philosophy of science" (as it was taught me in Physics class in school) is that there are different ways of looking at things, different levels of details -- e.g. sub-atomic physics, then chemistry, biology, maybe ecology after that, astro-physics -- not to even mention sociology, psychology, maths, and so on. So these are different &...


Top 50 recent answers are included