Sorry, I misspelled your name, 118. I hope that was not important.
-Tuukka
4.1.2012 5:11, Tuukka Virtaperko kirjoitti:
Hello 188,
nice to meet you.
4.1.2012 2:58, 118 kirjoitti:
Is existence inherent? Hmmm... What the Buddhist would say is: NO!
They would treat everything like a rainbow. A rainbow does not exist
inherently because it requires causes. Therefore, there is nothing
one could point to as the actual essence of a rainbow, or anything for
that matter. A waterfall would be another example. Again, I do not
see this as Nihilistic, but more a shirking of responsibility, if this
was the sum total of Buddhism. This is what Marsha does not
understand. Buddhists are very responsible for Self. Therefore it
does exist.
Could you tell me why a Buddhist would say so?
Isn't "not requiring a cause" also just another cause? Why does the
absence of inherent existence require a cause? Shouldn't it be the
other way around?
-Tuukka
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
