/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17568669]

Continuation of >>17562990

>>17564347
respondent: Surely you are not so foolish so as to equate apparent existence with actual or real existence? The time at which something is being considered having a determining affect upon the appearance of that thing in one’s mind only pertains to our subjective experience of things, it does not provide us with foolproof knowledge of the ontological status of the thing being considered.

NΛGΛRJVNΛ: In all ways that a thing can be known, perceived or imagined, it is conditionally dependent. To be unconditioned means that things that are clearly conditioned such as objects of knowledge, perception and imagination can clearly not interact with the unconditioned. In a reality of conditional dependence, an uncnditnoed thing is simply absurd like a donkey's horn.
Time is an example of this - when can I know/see/describe something that exists beynd time?
If Motion is an essence inherent in all movers:
Then movers could never come to rest lest movement come to rest
If motion is a real thing that movers partake in:
Then when the mover moves motion also moves and then motion needs to partake of another motion (the motion of motion) which in turn will need take part of its own motion
The same applies to all fabrications. To see anything as inherently existent is clearly false upon even basic analysis.

respondent: Yes, such as God, Allah, Brahman, the Tao. Buddhists also hold Nirvana to be uncaused but for some reason their imagination fails them when directed elsewhere.
NΛGΛRJVNΛ: Nirvana is conditionally dependent too.

respondent: That may be so but it doesn't refute the truth here to be recognized which is that certain Buddhists contradict themselves and become hypocrites by posting reaction images implying that uncaused things don't exist (advancing an argument would be too much for them), while also maintaining that Nirvana or the Unconditioned is uncaused.
NΛGΛRJVNΛ: Nirvana is conditioned.

[Anonymous No.17568671]

respondent:
if Buddhism accepts as a possibility that there could be uncaused things that exist, why then does Nagarjuna argue in the text quoted by OP (I assume that this is where its from) against that by saying “This deprives existence to things that arise from causes, but also for the uncaused which would have to constantly remanifest at different points”. That sounds like he is arguing against the notion that an inherently existing uncaused thing could exist and persist over time, it sounds like Nagarjuna is trying to rule that out as illogical.
NΛGΛRJVNΛ: NΛGΛRJVNΛ asserts nothing, it is just that upon analysis the illusion of maya is shown to be ignorance.
As the good friend has said:
"There's absolutely nothing saying that there aren't things out there that we cannot interact with, and as such that cannot interact with us.
But you can't interact with them, and they can't interact with you, so they effectively don't exist."

The correct is to know that existence is not tenable, but nor is non-existence. This leaves emptiness, the indeterminate state which analysis of the conditional dependence of all apparent phenomena and entities leads to.