/lit/ - Literature

Clearly, the whole debate is about whether or not a substance can change relationships without being altered
Buddhists say no, Hindus say yes
Please, what are your arguments on this precise subject

Buddhists say that a man who is married and then remarried changes with his change of relationship
And yet the Hindus are right it is the same man in both cases

>>19420195
Sure, but this stability is again relative ... I agree it is difficult to understand that CONTINUITY of PERFECT movement is not the same as PERMANENCE. Wanting something "qui reste in fine" is a Greek preconceptions talking. The point is that there is in the interconnected sea of process NOT A SINGLE THING that remains the same. When Buddhists talk about "eternity" they don't refer to the "eternity" of some "stable" Platonic idea or substance, but of the ONGOINGNESS of the enlightened properties of the Buddha-mind. Because these are continuous and depend on one another, there is no isolated, independent permanent core inherently existing. So no, one does not needs a stable reference, except if this is again relative to something else. The same goes in quantum physics and relativity. There is no stable mass (but a transient resistance against the Higgs field generating Higgs bosons), no absolute time, no absolute space. The continuity of the absolute mind of a Buddha is not permanent, not stable, not substantial, not self-referential. The 'holomovement' (Guenther) of this mind is continuous, like an ongoing symmetry transformation, someone perfectly swimming, constantly moving, but with beauty and perfection. Not in some heaven after death, or by rejecting existence as mere illusion, but here and now. The absolute exists in the transient.