This is interesting take. But the 5 skandhas are not a self. We mistake them for a self, but no self can be found. I think this distinction is subtle, but important.https://twitter.com/thomyor_/status/983691453321838592 …
That’s saying the same thing, as far as I can tell. Skandhas is one model, pretty good too, although I think it misses out on some of the socially determined aspects of what we usually mistake as self....Buddha could take some hints from Whitehead’s process-relational philosophy.
-
-
Belief in self, illusory or not, is the cause of samsara. So the distinction is important. Sorry if that is neither helpful nor skillful. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
-
So there isn’t a bundle of activity tweeting back at me here, now? Doesn’t mean that bundle of activity tweeting back at me isn’t dependantly originated, completely empty of a self, and so on. But here we’re debating emptiness instead of realising it, lulz yolo.pic.twitter.com/eaWQu3X5xu
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Although to be fair - that could be an impression resulting from my ignorance of the finer points of the skandhas. Either way ‘form is emptiness, emptiness is form’ pretty much covers it. I also like the patterned-nebulously interpretation via
@Meaningness - that an Aro thing? -
*patterned-nebulosity
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.