nothing can exist

[yandex99]

if something were still it would not be acting or moving so it would not have a essence or be a agent which is the definition of existing,existance is an act.

if something were moving and acting,it would not be permanent,so it would have no existance or essence.

being and becoming thus cannot exist.the unconditioned and the conditioned cannot exist.

existance is a nonexistant conceptual fabrication.the truth is emptiness and even the emptiness of emptiness or the essenceless of essencelessness since all concepts are illusory fabrications like a married bachelor.illusory existance exists but it's a contradiction and not just a paradox,it's like a hare's horn only we percieve things as being 'there'.

 

[Megas Alexandros]

wow we're all impressed with your high levels of intelligence!!!

 

[yandex99]

nonexistance doesn't exist either so emptiness of emptiness.there is no view.

gigabuddha pilled from reading nagarjuna.ive studied shaivism,advaita,thomism and neoplatonism and they all diminish next to madhyamika.

 

[yandex99]

wow we're all impressed with your high levels of intelligence!!!

it's just me reading nagarjuna with a open but thinking mind.im pretty unwise.

 

[Eternal_]

Is this referring to epistemology? Whether we can trust what we see and perceive?

 

[yandex99]

Is this referring to epistemology? Whether we can trust what we see and perceive?

madhyamika epistemology is basically that everything is a contradiction and illusory,the ultimate truth is a married bachelor is everything.so it cannot exist.it only seems to,it's not 'like'an illusion as Acharya malcolm on dharmawheel said,it's an illusion,a married beachelor,a hare's horn.

that is the true ontology.