yandex99
Master
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2023
- Posts
- 1,571
- Reputation
- 1,361
Basically from what I understand in the last 40 minutes of reading the karika of Nagarjuna,because movement is non-essential and uninherent,otherwise there could be movement without a mover,or vice versa.to say they're the same thing,means each new movement that is another movement,means a different agent each time.another means different,if there were something essentially different,it would essentially be another and be the ultimate reality,but we clearly see things are the same conventionally.yet also different conventionally.
for stillness,it would imply that there could be stillness without something still,or vice versa aswell,and to say they're the same makes no sense.if they were the same maybe they could essentially exist,but that means stillness is the only or ultimate reality,which is absurd as things clearly move.
so both movement and stillness do not essentially exist.
in fact essentiality is absurd metaphysically because reality is a pair of opposites that contradict on another,so reality is contradictorary and only something coherent can essentially exist,but we see that again because they contradict,opposites cannot be the same,but if they were the same,they would essentially exist and be the ultimate,but then there would be no opposing contradictorary things,which we clearly see in reality and metaphysics.As I showed with sameness and difference earlier being essential.to be essential means to be unique and ultimate,as the neoplatonists rightfully said about their Monad(I don't mean to bring other philosophies in this,but they were the height of western philosophy despite their mistakes in reifying things,they had somewhat good epistemology which made them conclude a essential thing must be unique and ultimate,as multiplicity is contigency)
God or any 'entity' believers,essentially essentialists,say God is just and merciful,calm and wrathful,in movement and in stillness,yet then he would not be coherent or and thus essential.
I believe our beloved Acarya Malcolm said madhyamika sees reality as a essentiality empty contradiction,or opposites being opposites,and not the same like the Tirthikas of old believed as he said with sankhya inlfuences,where thus in their epistemology a still mover could exist.That is the difference between all other philosophies which are essentialist.Buddhist epistemology is the only one that conveys emptiness.
Am I right?Does what I have retained above from the Kaarikaa make much sense?
for stillness,it would imply that there could be stillness without something still,or vice versa aswell,and to say they're the same makes no sense.if they were the same maybe they could essentially exist,but that means stillness is the only or ultimate reality,which is absurd as things clearly move.
so both movement and stillness do not essentially exist.
in fact essentiality is absurd metaphysically because reality is a pair of opposites that contradict on another,so reality is contradictorary and only something coherent can essentially exist,but we see that again because they contradict,opposites cannot be the same,but if they were the same,they would essentially exist and be the ultimate,but then there would be no opposing contradictorary things,which we clearly see in reality and metaphysics.As I showed with sameness and difference earlier being essential.to be essential means to be unique and ultimate,as the neoplatonists rightfully said about their Monad(I don't mean to bring other philosophies in this,but they were the height of western philosophy despite their mistakes in reifying things,they had somewhat good epistemology which made them conclude a essential thing must be unique and ultimate,as multiplicity is contigency)
God or any 'entity' believers,essentially essentialists,say God is just and merciful,calm and wrathful,in movement and in stillness,yet then he would not be coherent or and thus essential.
I believe our beloved Acarya Malcolm said madhyamika sees reality as a essentiality empty contradiction,or opposites being opposites,and not the same like the Tirthikas of old believed as he said with sankhya inlfuences,where thus in their epistemology a still mover could exist.That is the difference between all other philosophies which are essentialist.Buddhist epistemology is the only one that conveys emptiness.
Am I right?Does what I have retained above from the Kaarikaa make much sense?
Last edited:
