[MD] emptiness

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

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
>