Are there any accounts of "emptiness", preferably purely phenomenological/methodological, that don't presume a contentious metaphysics?
-
-
What is it like for you, or anyone who has practice with emptiness, to be confronted by the question "what is 94 + 67", and to answer it? From reading your stuff, it doesn't seem like emptiness is incompatible with computing this, but that seems incompatible with "no thought"
-
For Vajrayana, emptiness is not the goal; it is in fact the starting point. (Sutrayana takes emptiness as the goal.) Emptiness and form are inseparable; they are two aspects of the same thing, and conceptually distinguishing them is somewhat of a distortion.
- Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Well “emptiness” is just a word. There’s 2000 years of arguments about “what it really means” (in the absence of a philosophy of language that would dissolve that question). Different thinkers have given it quite different interpretations.
-
Some of the meanings-in-use of “emptiness” are pretty clearly wrong; many are too vague or self-contradictory to do much work for us. Others might be importantly functional, but they’re hard to separate from their history of use and apply in a different context.
- Još 4 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
The best technical translation of the description I have read is “a non-affirming negative phenomena” Berzin describes it as things cannot exist in impossible ways which I don’t think is as good as the first def. a negation which does not affirm some other thing.
-
That’s a particular interpretation of emptiness, from Prasangika Madhyamaka. FWIW I think that interpretation has some unfortunate consequences, but I agree that it is metaphysically relatively unproblematic.
- Još 7 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.