What idea was that. It is very hard follow you.5heaps wrote:im not attacking them, i agree with momentariness. what im attacking is your idea which i citedtiltbillings wrote:Obviously the point is that the later Theravadins did not do that. Had they, you silly criticism would be appropriate.
And they are not?since all youve been saying lately is stuff about how things are designations,
Who would possibly say that? Again, you are filtering what is being said through your understanding of the tenet system.what, then, can that person possibly mean wen he says that the present doesnt exist because there is no present, theres just past and future?
You are doing a rather poor job of it.i think you have to employ the use of some form of designation, otherwise it is sheer nihilism. if you to use designation i will attempt to show how it too is nihilistic just as im trying with nana
Just a yes or no question: Does Nagarjuna say things exist in a substantial (whatever that might mean) way?what this has to do with tenet systems i dont quite know. if you just accepted momentariness it would be fine. apparently, however, you think characteristic natures exist without actually existing in any substantial way, somehow.
Actually, what does this have to do with the OP? It is always the same thing with you - trying to filter the Theravada through your non-Theravadin point of view. Why? You have essentially hijacked this thread with your postings that really are not to the point of what is being discussed. You want to discuss this stuff, start a new thread, please.