I also tagged on dependent origination. What else would add to the definition?
-
-
Replying to @shaunbartone
Mainly that objects aren't even objects, but just thought to be so by convention. Your text could imply that, but I'd make it explicit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OortCloudAtlas
True, but I said at the end of the paragraph ‘They are all transformations of energy, expressions of physical laws, the fundamental forces of the universe itself.’
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shaunbartone @OortCloudAtlas
Which is still something more than ‘absolute emptiness’, but the current scientific consensus is that absolute emptiness is not physically possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shaunbartone @OortCloudAtlas
Emptiness is not the same as "empty space", or "nothing", in the physical sense. It's not meant as a metaphysical description of reality. For Nagarjuna, asserting that an object "doesn't really exist" is just as flawed as asserting that it has ultimate/independent existence.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
The point is that you can't even talk about objects existing or not existing, because neither extreme adequately reflects the reality of interdependence. So I think you're right to link it to interdependence.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Failed_Buddhist @shaunbartone
For the record I said that objects aren’t even objects, which is something quite different than saying they do or don’t exist. This mystery at the heart of objects (what anything actually “is”) can never be resolved—and to me that is wonderful.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @OortCloudAtlas @shaunbartone
Right, that was a good way to frame it. Objects aren't so much "objects" as they are events (the event being a particular combination of causes and conditions).
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
This is why I appreciated you and Kenneth's discussion re: the self/ego. Saying the ego doesn't exist (and yet somehow it must be destroyed!) is flawed. Understanding that the self is an impersonal event, rather than an object that is "me", is a more useful way to talk about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
An event and in more traditional language, a view. The ego is an event and the false context in which other events are experienced and reified. It’s the reification that gets us in trouble.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Yes, instead of "this is happening", we reify the ego and it becomes "this is happening to me".
-
-
Yes, and also “this is me happening.”
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.