A Question for my Twitter Sangha: is Non-Dualism the same as the doctrine of Emptiness? My experience with Dzogchen and Tibetan Buddhism confused the two (either they confused them or I did), but now I'm starting to see them as very different doctrines. What's your take on it?
-
-
I also tagged on dependent origination. What else would add to the definition?
-
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.
-
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.’
-
Which is still something more than ‘absolute emptiness’, but the current scientific consensus is that absolute emptiness is not physically possible.
-
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.
-
Agreed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
Sentient comet
Meditation freak
Teacher
Author
Podcaster
SF nerd
Serial comma enthusiast
Raised by wolves
Bad influence 