Originally posted by vistesdI yield. 🙂
[b]Buddhists may argue something like 'a thing cannot exist without differentiation between (or reference to) other existent things', but I'm not ready to accept that.
Really? Please identify for me a “thing” that is not differentiated from all that is not that particular “thing”. (A and ~ A, and all that.) Has nothing particularly to do with Buddh ...[text shortened]... finition of “thing”… (Sorry, couldn't resist! 😉 Usually, you know, I agree with you.)[/b]
I have been bizarro-me for long enough in this thread.
Thanks for all constructive contributions. One does end in a word whirlpool sometimes and I too get dizzy. It was just that phrase that got me, SG. Thanks for the joust.
"Just like a reflection in a mirror,
I understand the nature of appearances is empty.
Just like seeing some spectacle displayed in a dream,
I understand that the nature of being empty is to appear."
Tragba Gyaltsen.
