ignorant reification of what? the nature of objects. whats wrong with objects? we dont know how they exist, we think they have intrinsic existence. whats the study of the nature of existence? ontology.Ñāṇa wrote:No, one is trying to end unsatisfactoriness by removing ignorant reification and craving
are you suggesting Theravada is not a realist school?I'm not under any obligation to accept any commentarial use of sabhāva,
"they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all."tiltbillings wrote:Do you have a clue as the the context of what is being stated here? No, I didn't think so.
What is this besides the simple negation of the conventional existence of the present moment? what do you think that means? try and give me some crap about designation. tell me that the present moment of any instance of the form aggregate is an internal object (ie. a designation).