Sociopath Community

AliceInWonderland said: 

ddddddd said: 

Because if you examine, you find that neither self nor phenomena have inherent existence. 

That's a pretty bold claim. 

 How is it we can know that these things have no inherent existence? 

ddddddd said: 

The point is that if something is subject to causes and conditions it means it is compounded and not really inherently existent (through itself), so it can't be ultimate truth. We cannot really say how things exist, we can only say how they do not exist.

Does a thing have to be an ultimate truth to exists? Why can things subject to causes and conditions not exists? If it has a condition or can be causes to have an affect, does it not exist? If we can't know how a thing exists how could we know how it can't exist? If we can know how it can't exist, couldn't we infer the ways it can? 

Basically to give you the essence, this is the middle path beyond the extremes of nihilism and eternalism.

 How can we know essence, how can we gain essence, how can we know we've gained it? If there are essences are there not   things? For there to be an essence does their have to be a substance? How can a substance not have an essence and then have an essence by some cause? 

 

 

 

 It is not a question about whether things exist or do not. This view does not say that things do not exist. This misunderstanding comes from TC equating emptiness with nothingness, which I pointed out is wrong. To say that things are empty of inherent existence is not to say that they do not appear. They do appear (on a relative level), but only because this view is not realized (the ultimate). How do they arise exactly then on the relative level you ask? This is explained as dependent arising and there are 12 links of dependent arising which you can read about if you really wanna know.

ddddddd said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

ddddddd said: 

Because if you examine, you find that neither self nor phenomena have inherent existence. 

That's a pretty bold claim. 

 How is it we can know that these things have no inherent existence? 

ddddddd said: 

The point is that if something is subject to causes and conditions it means it is compounded and not really inherently existent (through itself), so it can't be ultimate truth. We cannot really say how things exist, we can only say how they do not exist.

Does a thing have to be an ultimate truth to exists? Why can things subject to causes and conditions not exists? If it has a condition or can be causes to have an affect, does it not exist? If we can't know how a thing exists how could we know how it can't exist? If we can know how it can't exist, couldn't we infer the ways it can? 

Basically to give you the essence, this is the middle path beyond the extremes of nihilism and eternalism.

 How can we know essence, how can we gain essence, how can we know we've gained it? If there are essences are there not   things? For there to be an essence does their have to be a substance? How can a substance not have an essence and then have an essence by some cause? 

 

 

 

 It is not a question about whether things exist or do not. This view does not say that things do not exist. This misunderstanding comes from TC equating emptiness with nothingness, which I pointed out is wrong. To say that things are empty of inherent existence is not to say that they do not appear. They do appear (on a relative level), but only because this view is not realized (the ultimate). How do they arise exactly then on the relative level you as? This is explained as dependent arising and there are 18 links of dependent arising which you can read about if you really wanna know.

Then why did you give the answer "Because if you examine, you find that neither self nor phenomena have inherent existence. "  to the question "What makes the ultimate conclusion being emptiness valid?". You pointed out that what makes the conclusion of emptiness valid is because things do not inherently exist. If TC takes you on your word, how can you blame TC? 

So you believe that some process can cause their to be essences in a reality you claim has no essences? 

ddddddd said: 

Nihilism in this tenet is defined as the believe in non existence.

It's not about nonexistence, it's about meaninglessness. 

It's about how either outcome has no inherent weight. 

Eternalism is the believe in existence.

Not... quite... 

Eternalism attempts to explain reality through a comparatively similar model to how Christianity's God has been written to see the passage of time: As one moment. It's the notion that everything is happening at once rather than as the linear progression of time that we filter it through. 

You can be a materialist holding both views actually. A nihilist view for example would be that after death, there is nothing.

Materialism would be to embrace the here and now, "the material". It's messages similar to YOLO that choose to embrace the present without any cares beyond feeding their immediate needs. It's a path of appetite, unlike more Existential or Nihilist paths. 

"In this tenet..." is what I wrote my dear

ddddddd said: 

This misunderstanding comes from TC equating emptiness with nothingness, which I pointed out is wrong.

I also compared nothingness to the void, but then you stopped comprehending the rhetoric. 

It's cool though, it's nice that you're trying to grasp this stuff at all. It's a lot to take in. 

It is void of WHAT, thats the relevant question. If we say it is THE VOID, it just becomes another thing. Do you understand this? Thus we cant really say what the ultimate IS, we can only say what it IS NOT. Do you get it until here? Because you seem to not follow at all since the first page.

So you believe that some process can cause their to be essences in a reality you claim has no essences?

You are talking of dependent origination I guess. 

ddddddd said: 

You are talking of dependent origination I guess. 

 You use language of dependent origination. 

ddddddd said: 

It is void of WHAT, thats the relevant question. If we say it is THE VOID, it just becomes another thing. Do you understand this?

The void is simply a label for the concept. That doesn't make it a thing beyond it gaining a point of reference any more than zero becoming a number from it being put on a number scale.