Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Sile - "Is this equivalent to "he has stopped eating jello/he hasn't stopped eating jello," i.e. the truth is not captured by either view (for someone who's never eaten jello)? It's not true contradiction?"
Yes, exactly @Sile. If it is not a true contradiction then we should not be applying the law of the excluded middle. So, for instance, unless it is true that an electron is a wave or a particle, then it might be something else entirely. There is 'no third option' only if 'wave-particle' is a true contradiction. For many philosophical dilemmas all too often this turns into the idea that because there seems to be no third option it must be a true contradiction. This is back to front, and it is the way of thinking that creates these dilemmas in the first place. Such dilemmas do not arise for Buddhists, since the Buddha teaches (and Nagarjuna proves) that there are no true contradictions. Tao is never this or that, so there can be no true contradictions and no intractable philosophical dilemmas. Philosophy is solved.
PS - Sorry to disappear after making this claim, but I won't be able to post again here for a few days.
This still doesn't help tell me understand if I should get out of the way of the speeding car.
@Dakini, I would personally move out of the way. Why? Because I haven't cut through the 6th fetter (lust for material existence); however, I imagine that if I were an Arahat, it wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other if I got hit by a speeding car.
@Dakini, I would personally move out of the way. Why? Because I haven't cut through the 6th fetter (lust for material existence); however, I imagine that if I were an Arahat, it wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other if I got hit by a speeding car.
Which is why they say it is difficult to pull out of a nihilistic view of emptiness. Why eat? Why breathe?
The car would still do serious damage to you if you were an arhat, even though you may have believed it didn't really exist, though.
@Dakini, even to mereological nihilists such as myself, cars exist in a sense -- they are simply elementary particles arranged car-wise. We as humans refer to this particular arrangment of particles "car." The point is simply that a car lacks a permanent, independent, or irreducible "self" that exists as the essense of "car-ness." A car isn't a single or static entity; rather, it's simply a particular combination of particles that, when placed into a certain arrangment, we call a car. Therefore, cars are anatta.
The question is not whether or not damage would be done if hit by a speeding car -- of course it would. The question is "what would damage be done to?" If there is no "true self" then all that would be damaged is the impermanent, dependent, and reducible aggregates which we mistakenly identify as "self."
That is why it would not matter to an arahat if he or she were to be hit by a speeding car, because an arahat doesn't lust for material or immaterial existence, nor does he or she identify with the aggregates.
Craving is the source of dukkha, including craving for self, craving for identity, craving for things to be a certain way, and yes, even craving to not be hit by speeding cars
@Dakini, I would personally move out of the way. Why? Because I haven't cut through the 6th fetter (lust for material existence); however, I imagine that if I were an Arahat, it wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other if I got hit by a speeding car.
Which is why they say it is difficult to pull out of a nihilistic view of emptiness. Why eat? Why breathe?
@aMatt, I personally eat and breathe because I want to live. I'm attached to material existence. If I ever wish to reach arhatship, I must break that attachment.
As for why an arhat would wish to continue eating and breathing, I can think of at least one reason -- to help others attain enlightenment. Other than that, I don't know.
@Dakini, I would personally move out of the way. Why? Because I haven't cut through the 6th fetter (lust for material existence); however, I imagine that if I were an Arahat, it wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other if I got hit by a speeding car.
Which is why they say it is difficult to pull out of a nihilistic view of emptiness. Why eat? Why breathe?
But the Buddha didn't teach nihilism. He taught a Middle Way between nihilism and eternalism. He didn't teach that we don't exist. He taught that our characteristics aren't permanent; we're always evolving. I don't know how this nihilism stuff got into Buddhism. :wtf:
@Dakini, I would personally move out of the way. Why? Because I haven't cut through the 6th fetter (lust for material existence); however, I imagine that if I were an Arahat, it wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other if I got hit by a speeding car.
Which is why they say it is difficult to pull out of a nihilistic view of emptiness. Why eat? Why breathe?
But the Buddha didn't teach nihilism. He taught a Middle Way between nihilism and eternalism. He didn't teach that we don't exist. He taught that our characteristics aren't permanent; we're always evolving. I don't know how this nihilism stuff got into Buddhism. :wtf:
To my understanding, the Buddha didn't teach a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism; rather, he taught a Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. In my opinion, the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism is the view that there was never truly anything to be eternal or annihilated in the first place.
In my view, realizing that there is no "self" is essential to attaining the ultimate goal of Buddhism -- Nirvana. I've described this view on another discussion in these words:
By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana.
Therefore, imagining the existence of a self [even a constantly evolving self] only serves as an impediment to attaining Nirvana, for as long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self.
That's my understanding of Buddhism, anyway.
3
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Dakini Emptiness doesn't mean that nothing exists at all, rather it is saying that things don't exist in the way that we normally perceive them. Things aren't isolated entities running around changing by themselves and bumping into other isolated entities, instead everything interpenetrates and depends on everything else for it's existence.
To my understanding, the Buddha didn't teach a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism; rather, he taught a Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. In my opinion, the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism is the view that there was never truly anything to be eternal or annihilated in the first place.
Your view of the Middle Way is the definition of nihilism. It's one of the extremes that the Middle Way path is aimed at countering. In my opinion.
Bodhivaka said: By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana.
Therefore, imagining the existence of a self [even a constantly evolving self] only serves as an impediment to attaining Nirvana, for as long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self. That's my understanding of Buddhism, anyway.
This doesn't address the fact that there IS a "self", there is someone who opens bank accounts in our name, who signs checks, who shows up at work every day and cashes the paychecks issued in our name. The Buddha didn't deny that he had an everyday working "self". The truly skillful approach to dealing with the "self" is by practicing non-attachment to it. We recognize that this "self" is an aspect of practical daily life we need to utilize in order to get through life, but we don't attach any importance to it. We don't derive any status from it or satisfaction from it, it's just a tool we use in order to function in society.
The Buddha accepted that he was viewed as an Enlightened One, and that he had to play a role in order to be able to teach others how to achieve what he had done; in order to show others the way to Liberation from suffering. His ego didn't cling to his reputation or to his status as a wise man and great teacher, though. "Self" isn't synonymous with ego. "Self" is what you make of it: a mere convenience or tool that facilitates living in the world for the ultimate purpose of practicing the Dharma and reaching Enlightenment, vs. a be-all, end-all in itself. The choice is ours.
To my understanding, the Buddha didn't teach a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism; rather, he taught a Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. In my opinion, the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism is the view that there was never truly anything to be eternal or annihilated in the first place.
Your view of the Middle Way is the definition of nihilism. It's one of the extremes that the Middle Way path is aimed at countering. In my opinion.
Yes, my view is the definition of nihilism; in fact, that's what it is called -- mereological nihilism. As I said, I don't think the Buddha rejected nihilism; rather, I believe he rejected annihilationism.
Nihilism is the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism, as both eternalism and annihilationism assert the existence of a self; therefore, nihilism (the view that there never was a self to be eternal or annihilated in the first place) is, in my opinion, the Middle Way.
This doesn't address the fact that there IS a "self", there is someone who opens bank accounts in our name, who signs checks, who shows up at work every day and cashes the paychecks issued in our name.
The only thing opening bank accounts, signing checks, and cashing paychecks is a combination of form, mental formations, and consciousness working together to perform a function (which are three of five aggregates that the Buddha clearly rejected as the "self").
The Buddha didn't deny that he had an everyday working "self".
The only "working self" that exists is a combination of the five aggregates, none of which you have any control over; as such, they can't rightly be called "self." I believe most Buddhists are agreed on this matter.
The truly skillful approach to dealing with the "self" is by practicing non-attachment to it. We recognize that this "self" is an aspect of practical daily life we need to utilize in order to get through life, but we don't attach any importance to it. We don't derive any status from it or satisfaction from it, it's just a tool we use in order to function in society.
The Buddha accepted that he was viewed as an Enlightened One, and that he had to play a role in order to be able to teach others how to achieve what he had done; in order to show others the way to Liberation from suffering. His ego didn't cling to his reputation or to his status as a wise man and great teacher, though. "Self" isn't synonymous with ego. "Self" is what you make of it: a mere convenience or tool that facilitates living in the world for the ultimate purpose of practicing the Dharma and reaching Enlightenment, vs. a be-all, end-all in itself. The choice is ours.
In my opinion, unless you believe in the existence of an entity which exists separate and distinct from the five aggregates as the "true you", you can't reasonably assert a "self" within the Buddhist framework, as the Buddha clearly rejected the idea that any of the aggregates could truly be called "I," "Me," or "Mine."
The only "working self" that exists is a combination of the five aggregates, none of which you have any control over; as such, they can't rightly be called "self." I believe most Buddhists are agreed on this matter.
In my opinion, unless you believe in the existence of an entity which exists separate and distinct from the five aggregates as the "true you", you can't reasonably assert a "self" within the Buddhist framework, as the Buddha clearly rejected the idea that any of the aggregates could truly be called "I," "Me," or "Mine."
The only "working self" that exists is a combination of the five aggregates, none of which you have any control over; as such, they can't rightly be called "self." I believe most Buddhists are agreed on this matter.
How do you know "most" Buddhists agree on that?
In all my research and experience I've simply never came across a Buddhist who asserted that the aggregates can rightly be called "self." It seems to be something the Buddha was quite clear about.
The only "working self" that exists is a combination of the five aggregates, none of which you have any control over; as such, they can't rightly be called "self." I believe most Buddhists are agreed on this matter.
How do you know "most" Buddhists agree on that?
It is Buddhism 101. Else, it would be practically indistinguishable from Hinduism.
Wait a minute, Bodhivaka, for a guy who doesn't believe in the concept of "self", in this thread you've used the word "I" at least 40 times, "my" at least 11 times, and "me" at least once. Not to mention other pronouns at least 21 times.
I've said it before...I think there are Buddhists...particularly many Western Buddhists...not necessarily you...who think it's very cool and esoteric to have this kind of discussion. It makes them part of an inner circle. While, quite frankly, I find most of Buddha's teaching rather down to earth and simple to understand. Interestingly, I don't find many old world Buddhists dwelling on the topic.
To my understanding, the Buddha didn't teach a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism; rather, he taught a Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. In my opinion, the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism is the view that there was never truly anything to be eternal or annihilated in the first place.
Your view of the Middle Way is the definition of nihilism. It's one of the extremes that the Middle Way path is aimed at countering. In my opinion.
Yes, my view is the definition of nihilism; in fact, that's what it is called -- mereological nihilism. As I said, I don't think the Buddha rejected nihilism; rather, I believe he rejected annihilationism.
Nihilism is the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism, as both eternalism and annihilationism assert the existence of a self; therefore, nihilism (the view that there never was a self to be eternal or annihilated in the first place) is, in my opinion, the Middle Way.
Having read up on mereological nihilism briefly, because I had not heard of it, I can only say, that it appears to be a philosophy that has little merit from a Buddhist point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to depend on the notion of a basic particle of which the universe is made, which is wrongly perceived by us as various real forms. Nothing is real except the most basic particle. Which is they way you described it in an earlier post, I believe. In his Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna has soundly refuted the idea that a partless particle can exist. To my satisfaction, at least. He has shown us that nothing exists inherently. Yet things appear to exist. That cannot be denied, and Nagarjuna does not deny it. Things, including self, exist only as they appear. No more, no less. No hidden meaning or eternal soul on an epic quest. No tiny particles that are more real than everything else. So, form is empty, completely empty. It does not exist. Yet we perceive it. As you have said, self cannot be found, wherever you look. Yet we seem to feel as though we exist. So we are ephemeral selves witnessing wonders, in a moment to moment changing, completly empty, universe. I think that to follow the Middle Way is to be free from views. To see the world clearly, right now. Empty and fleeting, yet sparkling and deep. No need to be constantly trying to explain it to ourselves. At least we should try to keep it to a minimum.
In my opinion, unless you believe in the existence of an entity which exists separate and distinct from the five aggregates as the "true you", you can't reasonably assert a "self" within the Buddhist framework, as the Buddha clearly rejected the idea that any of the aggregates could truly be called "I," "Me," or "Mine."
And yet, the Buddha used first person pronouns.
I also use first person pronouns. Communication would be quite difficult if I didn't.
You'll have to forgive me for not being able to source what I'm about to say (perhaps someone can come to my rescue) but I recall reading a particular sutta where the disciples of the Buddha asked him about using words like "I" and "me" and he said that it was permissible simply for convenience of language. If I manage to find the source again I'll cite it as soon as possible.
The self, being the very essence of an object, cannot be a changing entity, so a 'changing self' is a contradiction in terms. And since everything changes, there is no such thing as self.
The difference lies in one of the last fetters to be abandoned that is mana or conceit.
The understanding that it is this erroneous personality-belief that keeps us thinking that there is some ongoing essence or substance in this five aggregate phenomena that can rightly be called "I" will not immediately or automatically prevent the thought of "I" from coming up in the mind as it is a very deeply rooted Sankhara that has been built up over a long period of time. Whenever a thought related to "I" does appear, we must mindfully apply the wisdom of anatta we have already gained and realize that "I" is nothing but an idea originating form an incorrect perception of reality. Whenever we notice ourselves thinking of an "I" as one of the aggregates or as related to one of them, we have to consider carefully the thought and reinforce our understanding that "Whatsoever material object... whatsoever feeling, whatsoever perception, whatsoever activities, whatsoever consciousness... (must be rightly regarded as) 'This is not mine, I am not this; this is not myself.'" This process of seeing the ignorance arise and repeatedly applying the Right View to it, gradually wears away even the thoughts of "I," "myself" and "mine." This total elimination of "I"-consciousness which is nothing but a subtle form of conceit, and of this concept of "mine" which is subtle form of tanha, does not happen until Arahantship is reached. But our task is to deepen the comprehension and investigation of anatta to greater and greater depths of insight by means of Vipassana meditation.
A group of monks once questioned the Venerable Khemaka about anatta and inquired whether he had attained Arhantship. He replied that he was not yet fully liberated because he still had subtle remnants of "I am" in his mind. He said to them:
I see that in these five grasping groups I have got the idea of "I am" yet I do not think that I am this "I am." Though (one is a non-returner)... yet there remains in him a subtle remnant of the I-conceit, of the I am-desire, of the lurking tendency to think "I am" still not removed from him. Later on he lives contemplating the rise and fall of the five grasping groups seeing thus: "Such is the body, such is the arising of body, such is the ceasing of it. Such is feeling... perception... the activities... consciousness." In this way... the subtle remnant of the I am-conceit, of the I am-desire, that lurking tendency to think "I am" which was still not removed from him — that is now removed. — K.S., III, p. 110
This explanation of Khemaka's was so clear and profound that as a direct result of his discourse, all the monks who listened to it and Khemaka himself as well, were fully liberated — with no remnants of "I am" remaining. So we would do well to carefully study what this wise monk said about the development of anatta so that we can come to understand how by means of this process of carefully observing, clearly experiencing, and thoroughly investigating the rise and fall of the five khandhas we gradually eliminate the gross layers of Sakkaya Ditthi and by the same means, more and more refined, ultimately root out even the latent, subconscious tendency to think "I am."
Investigation into the Three Universal Characteristics — anicca, dukkha, and anatta — is a fundamental requirement for the growth of liberating insight. Once we have thoroughly analyzed our own nama-rupa and also the phenomena of the external world, and completely understood how everything we can conceive of — real or imaginary, mental or physical, internal or external — is totally unstable, incapable of bringing real durable happiness and without any actual substance, detachment must follow and with it freedom from the dukkha of existence. The process of gradually overcoming ignorance with wisdom comes through the direct bodily experience of the unsatisfactoriness and essencelessness of this nama-rupa in meditation, combined with careful thought, so that these "experiences" have their full impact on the mind. Once again, it is by investigation in meditation that detachment from the "all" is won — and so too the ultimate peace free from all desire.
Wait a minute, Bodhivaka, for a guy who doesn't believe in the concept of "self", in this thread you've used the word "I" at least 40 times, "my" at least 11 times, and "me" at least once. Not to mention other pronouns at least 21 times.
I've said it before...I think there are Buddhists...particularly many Western Buddhists...not necessarily you...who think it's very cool and esoteric to have this kind of discussion. It makes them part of an inner circle. While, quite frankly, I find most of Buddha's teaching rather down to earth and simple to understand. Interestingly, I don't find many old world Buddhists dwelling on the topic.
The self has nothing to do with pronouns, so one can use any number of pronouns and still reject the self. The self simply refers to the essence of an object - any object - and since Buddhism contends that there is no essence (owing to dependent origination), there is no self either.
Wait a minute, Bodhivaka, for a guy who doesn't believe in the concept of "self", in this thread you've used the word "I" at least 40 times, "my" at least 11 times, and "me" at least once. Not to mention other pronouns at least 21 times.
I've said it before...I think there are Buddhists...particularly many Western Buddhists...not necessarily you...who think it's very cool and esoteric to have this kind of discussion. It makes them part of an inner circle. While, quite frankly, I find most of Buddha's teaching rather down to earth and simple to understand. Interestingly, I don't find many old world Buddhists dwelling on the topic.
Yes, I've explained my use of pronouns. It's simply for convenience of language.
The only "working self" that exists is a combination of the five aggregates, none of which you have any control over; as such, they can't rightly be called "self." I believe most Buddhists are agreed on this matter.
How do you know "most" Buddhists agree on that?
It is Buddhism 101. Else, it would be practically indistinguishable from Hinduism.
Really. What about all the old world Buddhists who never took the class?
To my understanding, the Buddha didn't teach a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism; rather, he taught a Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. In my opinion, the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism is the view that there was never truly anything to be eternal or annihilated in the first place.
Your view of the Middle Way is the definition of nihilism. It's one of the extremes that the Middle Way path is aimed at countering. In my opinion.
Yes, my view is the definition of nihilism; in fact, that's what it is called -- mereological nihilism. As I said, I don't think the Buddha rejected nihilism; rather, I believe he rejected annihilationism.
Nihilism is the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism, as both eternalism and annihilationism assert the existence of a self; therefore, nihilism (the view that there never was a self to be eternal or annihilated in the first place) is, in my opinion, the Middle Way.
Having read up on mereological nihilism briefly, because I had not heard of it, I can only say, that it appears to be a philosophy that has little merit from a Buddhist point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to depend on the notion of a basic particle of which the universe is made, which is wrongly perceived by us as various real forms. Nothing is real except the most basic particle. Which is they way you described it in an earlier post, I believe. In his Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna has soundly refuted the idea that a partless particle can exist. To my satisfaction, at least. He has shown us that nothing exists inherently. Yet things appear to exist. That cannot be denied, and Nagarjuna does not deny it. Things, including self, exist only as they appear. No more, no less. No hidden meaning or eternal soul on an epic quest. No tiny particles that are more real than everything else. So, form is empty, completely empty. It does not exist. Yet we perceive it. As you have said, self cannot be found, wherever you look. Yet we seem to feel as though we exist. So we are ephemeral selves witnessing wonders, in a moment to moment changing, completly empty, universe. I think that to follow the Middle Way is to be free from views. To see the world clearly, right now. Empty and fleeting, yet sparkling and deep. No need to be constantly trying to explain it to ourselves. At least we should try to keep it to a minimum.
I'm unfamiliar with Nagarjuna's arguments against an irreducible reality; however, my logic on the matter has been formulated as such:
1. Objects can be perceived, 2. That which can be perceived can be reduced, 3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression, 4. That which is irreducible is possessive of "self," as it exists in and of itself, 5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
As far as I can tell, my logic on the matter is sound, though someone may be able to demonstrate otherwise.
The only "working self" that exists is a combination of the five aggregates, none of which you have any control over; as such, they can't rightly be called "self." I believe most Buddhists are agreed on this matter.
How do you know "most" Buddhists agree on that?
It is Buddhism 101. Else, it would be practically indistinguishable from Hinduism.
Really. What about all the old world Buddhists who never took the class?
I think pegembara's quote concerning Khemaka does a fine job of demonstrating that old world Buddhist's rejected the idea of a self.
The old world Buddhists I knew well while living in Thailand would read this thread and their eyes would glaze over.
Where do you think this discussion -- which is a common discussion on every Buddhist forum I've been on...over and over and over -- is getting you?
Hopefully it's getting me to a more accurate intellectual understanding of reality. Will such an understanding provide any real life practicality? Perhaps, perhaps not; in all honesty, it doesn't much matter to me -- I appreciate knowledge for the mere fact that its knowledge, despite it's real life practicality (or lack thereof).
As far as I'm concerned, the reward for pursuing truth is simply learning truth; anything else is just icing on the cake.
Yes, I've explained my use of pronouns. It's simply for convenience of language.
Isn't that the same as what I said earlier; we use our name on documents, respond when people call us by name, do our laundry, and pick up our paychecks, using this construct as a tool, a convenience for getting through the necessities of life?
If you (or others) want to split hairs about how "self" is defined, that's a different argument entirely. But it would seem that as far as using personal pronouns and a proper name, you and I are in agreement, Bodhi.
The old world Buddhists I knew well while living in Thailand would read this thread and their eyes would glaze over.
Where do you think this discussion -- which is a common discussion on every Buddhist forum I've been on...over and over and over -- is getting you?
Hopefully it's getting me to a more accurate intellectual understanding of reality. Will such an understanding provide any real life practicality? Perhaps, perhaps not; in all honesty, it doesn't much matter to me -- I appreciate knowledge for the mere fact that its knowledge, despite it's real life practicality (or lack thereof).
As far as I'm concerned, the reward for pursuing truth is simply learning truth; anything else is just icing on the cake.
And that is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But I would also remind you that Buddha did not just teach to the intellectuals. To me, his teachings were to the everyday and practical.
Bhodivaka said: 1. Objects can be perceived, 2. That which can be perceived can be reduced, 3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression, 4. That which is irreducible is possessive of "self," as it exists in and of itself, 5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
What is that something? According to this, there IS "self", on some level.
Is there "self", or isn't there? I thought you were arguing that there wasn't "self". What #4 says, is that there is "something", some element, that exists independently of dependent origination.
And why is the fact that something can be reduced even relevant? Why should we care if something can be reduced? And who gets to decide how it should be reduced? Do we deconstruct the cake by taking it apart until it's crumbs? We can't take it apart by it's component parts (eggs, flour, etc.), because those components have morphed via mixing, and application of heat. So the original analogy doesn't work, anyway.
What makes a car a car is the combination of all the parts. Otherwise it's not a car. But so what? We still have to get out of the way if it's speeding towards us, because it is real.
Have you ever asked a lama about your theory, Bodhi? I was told it has nothing to do with reducing objects to sub-atomic particles.
Yes, I've explained my use of pronouns. It's simply for convenience of language.
Isn't that the same as what I said earlier; we use our name on documents, respond when people call us by name, do our laundry, and pick up our paychecks, using this construct as a tool, a convenience for getting through the necessities of life?
If you (or others) want to split hairs about how "self" is defined, that's a different argument entirely. But it would seem that as far as using personal pronouns and a proper name, you and I are in agreement, Bodhi.
Ah, I see. I've been defining "self" as that which exists as an irreducible, independent, and permanent entity; to the extent of that definition, I deny the existence of a human "self." If that's what you meant in your comment, then we're in agreement. I mistook you for saying that the fact checks are signed in our name is somehow evidence that the aggregates are our "true self." I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Ah, I see. I've been defining "self" as that which exists as an irreducible, independent, and permanent entity; to the extent of that definition, I deny the existence of a human "self." If that's what you meant in your comment, then we're in agreement. I mistook you for saying that the fact checks are signed in our name is somehow evidence that the aggregates are our "true self." I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I'm glad we could clarify at least this much. :om: But as long as you mentioned it, what do you think about the Mahayana doctrine of "True Self", or Buddhanature?
1. Objects can be perceived, 2. That which can be perceived can be reduced, 3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression, 4. That which is irreducible is possessive of "self," as it exists in and of itself, 5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
What is that something? According to this, there IS "self", on some level.
Is there "self", or isn't there? I thought you were arguing that there wasn't "self". What #4 says, is that there is "something", some element, that exists independently of dependent origination.
I'm beginning to fear that I haven't expressed my views lucidly enough; however, I did identify myself as a mereological nihilist quite early on in this conversation. Mereological nihilism asserts that reality exists at the level of elementary particles. It is elementary particles which are irreducible, independent, and permanent entities (my definition of a "true self.")
So yes, in my view, "self" does exist on the elementary particle level; it does not, however, exist at the level of reducible entities (such as humans.)
And why is the fact that something can be reduced even relevant? Why should we care if something can be reduced?
Did you ever read the other thread which I linked to you? I believe I've explained the significance of reductionism and the role in plays on our concept of "self" in the initial post and others there. For example, how could you reasonably assert that your body is "you" when it can be reduced to approximately 75 trillion cells, all of which live, operate, replicate, and die independently from you? The same method of reduction can be applied to the rest of the aggregates, including other things like cars and cakes.
And who gets to decide how it should be reduced? Do we deconstruct the cake by taking it apart until it's crumbs?
You could start by doing that, yes, and you'd just continue reducing until you reached the fundamental building blocks -- the elementary particles. It doesn't matter which aspect of the cake you choose to reduce, eventually you're going to reach the same destination, no matter how you go about reducing it.
We can't take it apart by it's component parts (eggs, flour, etc.), because those components have morphed via mixing, and application of heat. So the original analogy doesn't work, anyway.
The fact that the component parts have seemingly ceased to exist simply by rearranging their particles through mixing and the application of heat just goes to show that things like eggs are just a concept that lack any true self. They're simply particles arranged egg-wise. Mix up the particles and all of a sudden the egg is gone. But do you know what's still there? The elementary particles.
What makes a car a car is the combination of all the parts. Otherwise it's not a car. But so what? We still have to get out of the way if it's speeding towards us, because it is real
As I've said before, I'm not denying that a car exists as a combination of particles arranged in a way that we call "car"; of course it does. I'm simply asserting that the car has no intrinsic existence -- no "self."
Have you ever asked a lama about your theory, Bodhi? I was told it has nothing to do with reducing objects to sub-atomic particles.
I've tried talking to a llama about my views before, but it just stared at me and then went back to eating its hay
In all seriousness, though, no; however, if I did and they simply replied "nope, that's wrong," it wouldn't change my views in the least. The lama would actually have to provide a compelling refutation of my view. What my claim comes down to is really nothing more than "besides elementary particles, nothing possesses intrinsic existence, only reducible, impermanent, dependent, and subjective existence."
Ah, I see. I've been defining "self" as that which exists as an irreducible, independent, and permanent entity; to the extent of that definition, I deny the existence of a human "self." If that's what you meant in your comment, then we're in agreement. I mistook you for saying that the fact checks are signed in our name is somehow evidence that the aggregates are our "true self." I apologize for the misunderstanding.
I'm glad we could clarify at least this much. :om: But as long as you mentioned it, what do you think about the Mahayana doctrine of "True Self", or Buddhanature?
As a Secular Theravadin, I reject the notion of Buddha-nature. My understanding of Buddhism is derived strictly from the Pali Canon and its commentaries, as well as my personal experience and scientific understanding. As far as I'm aware, the concept of Buddha-nature isn't to be found anywhere in the Pali Canon.
The old world Buddhists I knew well while living in Thailand would read this thread and their eyes would glaze over.
Where do you think this discussion -- which is a common discussion on every Buddhist forum I've been on...over and over and over -- is getting you?
Hopefully it's getting me to a more accurate intellectual understanding of reality. Will such an understanding provide any real life practicality? Perhaps, perhaps not; in all honesty, it doesn't much matter to me -- I appreciate knowledge for the mere fact that its knowledge, despite it's real life practicality (or lack thereof).
As far as I'm concerned, the reward for pursuing truth is simply learning truth; anything else is just icing on the cake.
And that is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But I would also remind you that Buddha did not just teach to the intellectuals. To me, his teachings were to the everyday and practical.
In my opinion, unless you believe in the existence of an entity which exists separate and distinct from the five aggregates as the "true you", you can't reasonably assert a "self" within the Buddhist framework, as the Buddha clearly rejected the idea that any of the aggregates could truly be called "I," "Me," or "Mine."
And yet, the Buddha used first person pronouns.
I also use first person pronouns. Communication would be quite difficult if I didn't.
You'll have to forgive me for not being able to source what I'm about to say (perhaps someone can come to my rescue) but I recall reading a particular sutta where the disciples of the Buddha asked him about using words like "I" and "me" and he said that it was permissible simply for convenience of language. If I manage to find the source again I'll cite it as soon as possible.
I believe I may have found the source of my recollection; however, I was mistaken about the details; it's not a sutta detailing a conversation between the Buddha and his disciples; rather, it's the Arahant Nagasena's "Milanda Panha," which details a conversation between Nagasena and Milanda concerning anatta. When King Milanda questions Nagasena about his name, Nagasena replies:
'I am known as Nâgasena, O king, and it is by that name that my brethren in the faith address me. But although parents, O king, give such a name as Nâgasena, or Sûrasena, or Vîrasena, or Sîhasena, yet this, Sire,--Nâgasena and so on--is only a generally understood term, a designation in common use. For there is no permanent individuality (no soul) involved in the matter.'
Nagasena also uses reductionism on a chariot to demonstrate the non-existence of a self; therefore, if you're still confused as to why reductionism is relevant to the subject of anatta, @Dakini, I would recommend reading the Milanda Panha here: (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3504.htm).
If particles are fundamental then so is space and time. I find this idea impossible to reconcile with the Buddha's teachings. It seem more like Leibnitz's terrifying doctrine of monads.
If particles are fundamental then so is space and time. I find this idea impossible to reconcile with the Buddha's teachings. It seem more like Leibnitz's terrifying doctrine of monads.
What is so terrifying about Leibnitz's Doctrine of Monads? It's entirely consistent with our current scientific understanding of the universe; "monads" have simply been identified as fermions and bosons -- the fundamental, irreducible, building-block particles of our universe by which all other particles are made.
When it comes to the ultimate nature of reality, some of us don't look for truth within the writings of men who lived a thousand years ago and had no concept that those lights in the sky were stars, galaxies, and planets. We don't expect them to know about what hasn't been discovered yet. They didn't have telescopes or hundreds of years of scientific research or computers crunching numbers to draw upon.
But they did have minds and a long tradition of meditation and delving into the human condition, all that is required to observe and made conclusions about what it means to live within this reality. So they were authorities on the ultimate nature of humanity. Buddha was the Einstein of the time. Buddha's observations on the condition of the mind and what it takes to eliminate suffering have withstood the test of time.
So when it comes to the eternal question of why does the universe exist, we either end up in the world of quantum mathematics where nonsense becomes the norm, or if we're more interested in metaphysics, we still end up at a point where nonsense becomes the norm.
That doesn't mean there's no difference between physics and metaphysics. For instance, how can something come from nothing? Well, in physics it entirely depends on your definition of nothing.
Hey @Cinorjer. Metaphysics may often be where nonsense becomes the norm, but it doesn't have to be. It depends how you do it. Nagarjuna shows us the way.
I'm beginning to fear that I haven't expressed my views lucidly enough; however, I did identify myself as a mereological nihilist quite early on in this conversation. Mereological nihilism asserts that reality exists at the level of elementary particles. It is elementary particles which are irreducible, independent, and permanent entities (my definition of a "true self.")
So yes, in my view, "self" does exist on the elementary particle level; it does not, however, exist at the level of reducible entities (such as humans.)
This isn't Buddhism, though. Self doesn't suddenly exist at a minute level, but not at a greater level. Particle physics isn't Buddhism.
For example, how could you reasonably assert that your body is "you" when it can be reduced to approximately 75 trillion cells, all of which live, operate, replicate, and die independently from you? The same method of reduction can be applied to the rest of the aggregates, including other things like cars and cakes.
The fact that the body can be reduced to cells and particles has nothing to do with it. People don't identify with their bodies so much, anyway. The body is just a vessel. They tend to identify with their personality, their qualities. And those tend to change over time. The standard Buddhist deconstruction of "self" as it applies to humans is more along the lines of: is "self" in your name? That can change, as when women get married, or people go through ceremonial name-changes (as in Tibetan culture), or legal name-changes. Is "self" in your intelligence? That also changes. Is it in the qualities of personality? Each of those can change over time. So wherein does "Dakininess" or "Bodhivakaness" lie? That's the teaching. It doesn't get into physics, which wasn't known in the Buddha's time.
I think in this regard we have a difference of opinion. You say the Buddha DID teach nihilism, and I've been taught he didn't. So we just have to agree to disagree, I guess. :-/
To my understanding, the Buddha didn't teach a Middle Way between eternalism and nihilism; rather, he taught a Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. In my opinion, the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism is the view that there was never truly anything to be eternal or annihilated in the first place.
Your view of the Middle Way is the definition of nihilism. It's one of the extremes that the Middle Way path is aimed at countering. In my opinion.
Yes, my view is the definition of nihilism; in fact, that's what it is called -- mereological nihilism. As I said, I don't think the Buddha rejected nihilism; rather, I believe he rejected annihilationism.
Nihilism is the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism, as both eternalism and annihilationism assert the existence of a self; therefore, nihilism (the view that there never was a self to be eternal or annihilated in the first place) is, in my opinion, the Middle Way.
Having read up on mereological nihilism briefly, because I had not heard of it, I can only say, that it appears to be a philosophy that has little merit from a Buddhist point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to depend on the notion of a basic particle of which the universe is made, which is wrongly perceived by us as various real forms. Nothing is real except the most basic particle. Which is they way you described it in an earlier post, I believe. In his Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna has soundly refuted the idea that a partless particle can exist. To my satisfaction, at least. He has shown us that nothing exists inherently. Yet things appear to exist. That cannot be denied, and Nagarjuna does not deny it. Things, including self, exist only as they appear. No more, no less. No hidden meaning or eternal soul on an epic quest. No tiny particles that are more real than everything else. So, form is empty, completely empty. It does not exist. Yet we perceive it. As you have said, self cannot be found, wherever you look. Yet we seem to feel as though we exist. So we are ephemeral selves witnessing wonders, in a moment to moment changing, completly empty, universe. I think that to follow the Middle Way is to be free from views. To see the world clearly, right now. Empty and fleeting, yet sparkling and deep. No need to be constantly trying to explain it to ourselves. At least we should try to keep it to a minimum.
Actually the Abhidharma says there is an individual particle of time or events. That is why I think Nagarjuna was needed to speak his view; or that is why it was timely and wonderful that he taught.
1. Objects can be perceived, 2. That which can be perceived can be reduced, 3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression, 4. That which is irreducible is possessive of "self," as it exists in and of itself, 5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
What is that something? According to this, there IS "self", on some level.
Is there "self", or isn't there? I thought you were arguing that there wasn't "self". What #4 says, is that there is "something", some element, that exists independently of dependent origination.
I'm beginning to fear that I haven't expressed my views lucidly enough; however, I did identify myself as a mereological nihilist quite early on in this conversation. Mereological nihilism asserts that reality exists at the level of elementary particles. It is elementary particles which are irreducible, independent, and permanent entities (my definition of a "true self.")
So yes, in my view, "self" does exist on the elementary particle level; it does not, however, exist at the level of reducible entities (such as humans.)
And why is the fact that something can be reduced even relevant? Why should we care if something can be reduced?
Did you ever read the other thread which I linked to you? I believe I've explained the significance of reductionism and the role in plays on our concept of "self" in the initial post and others there. For example, how could you reasonably assert that your body is "you" when it can be reduced to approximately 75 trillion cells, all of which live, operate, replicate, and die independently from you? The same method of reduction can be applied to the rest of the aggregates, including other things like cars and cakes.
And who gets to decide how it should be reduced? Do we deconstruct the cake by taking it apart until it's crumbs?
You could start by doing that, yes, and you'd just continue reducing until you reached the fundamental building blocks -- the elementary particles. It doesn't matter which aspect of the cake you choose to reduce, eventually you're going to reach the same destination, no matter how you go about reducing it.
We can't take it apart by it's component parts (eggs, flour, etc.), because those components have morphed via mixing, and application of heat. So the original analogy doesn't work, anyway.
The fact that the component parts have seemingly ceased to exist simply by rearranging their particles through mixing and the application of heat just goes to show that things like eggs are just a concept that lack any true self. They're simply particles arranged egg-wise. Mix up the particles and all of a sudden the egg is gone. But do you know what's still there? The elementary particles.
What makes a car a car is the combination of all the parts. Otherwise it's not a car. But so what? We still have to get out of the way if it's speeding towards us, because it is real
As I've said before, I'm not denying that a car exists as a combination of particles arranged in a way that we call "car"; of course it does. I'm simply asserting that the car has no intrinsic existence -- no "self."
Have you ever asked a lama about your theory, Bodhi? I was told it has nothing to do with reducing objects to sub-atomic particles.
I've tried talking to a llama about my views before, but it just stared at me and then went back to eating its hay
In all seriousness, though, no; however, if I did and they simply replied "nope, that's wrong," it wouldn't change my views in the least. The lama would actually have to provide a compelling refutation of my view. What my claim comes down to is really nothing more than "besides elementary particles, nothing possesses intrinsic existence, only reducible, impermanent, dependent, and subjective existence."
I gave an insightful, yet I still recommend you do talk to a lama about this (or zen priest, or Thai Ajahn etc)...
Or read Nagarjuna or other Madhyamaka teachers. As it starts to sink in, one might scramble to find a way around the relentless logic. To make your view fit in there somehow. In the end, there is no view left to hold onto. Except through dogmatic stubbornness. I found Madhyamaka frustrating at first. Because it does not provide any information about how things are. Only how they are not. Now when I start to daydream about different possibilities for the nature of reality, nothing really sticks. I don't seem to need to have some kind of fixed view or understanding like I once did. It turns out that maintaining a view of how I believed things to be was much more work than just looking around to see what is going on, and acting accordingly.
Comments
@Sile - "Is this equivalent to "he has stopped eating jello/he hasn't stopped eating jello," i.e. the truth is not captured by either view (for someone who's never eaten jello)? It's not true contradiction?"
Yes, exactly @Sile. If it is not a true contradiction then we should not be applying the law of the excluded middle. So, for instance, unless it is true that an electron is a wave or a particle, then it might be something else entirely. There is 'no third option' only if 'wave-particle' is a true contradiction. For many philosophical dilemmas all too often this turns into the idea that because there seems to be no third option it must be a true contradiction. This is back to front, and it is the way of thinking that creates these dilemmas in the first place. Such dilemmas do not arise for Buddhists, since the Buddha teaches (and Nagarjuna proves) that there are no true contradictions. Tao is never this or that, so there can be no true contradictions and no intractable philosophical dilemmas. Philosophy is solved.
PS - Sorry to disappear after making this claim, but I won't be able to post again here for a few days.
The question is not whether or not damage would be done if hit by a speeding car -- of course it would. The question is "what would damage be done to?" If there is no "true self" then all that would be damaged is the impermanent, dependent, and reducible aggregates which we mistakenly identify as "self."
That is why it would not matter to an arahat if he or she were to be hit by a speeding car, because an arahat doesn't lust for material or immaterial existence, nor does he or she identify with the aggregates.
Craving is the source of dukkha, including craving for self, craving for identity, craving for things to be a certain way, and yes, even craving to not be hit by speeding cars
As for why an arhat would wish to continue eating and breathing, I can think of at least one reason -- to help others attain enlightenment. Other than that, I don't know.
In my view, realizing that there is no "self" is essential to attaining the ultimate goal of Buddhism -- Nirvana. I've described this view on another discussion in these words: That's my understanding of Buddhism, anyway.
By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana.
Therefore, imagining the existence of a self [even a constantly evolving self] only serves as an impediment to attaining Nirvana, for as long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self.
That's my understanding of Buddhism, anyway.
This doesn't address the fact that there IS a "self", there is someone who opens bank accounts in our name, who signs checks, who shows up at work every day and cashes the paychecks issued in our name. The Buddha didn't deny that he had an everyday working "self". The truly skillful approach to dealing with the "self" is by practicing non-attachment to it. We recognize that this "self" is an aspect of practical daily life we need to utilize in order to get through life, but we don't attach any importance to it. We don't derive any status from it or satisfaction from it, it's just a tool we use in order to function in society.
The Buddha accepted that he was viewed as an Enlightened One, and that he had to play a role in order to be able to teach others how to achieve what he had done; in order to show others the way to Liberation from suffering. His ego didn't cling to his reputation or to his status as a wise man and great teacher, though. "Self" isn't synonymous with ego. "Self" is what you make of it: a mere convenience or tool that facilitates living in the world for the ultimate purpose of practicing the Dharma and reaching Enlightenment, vs. a be-all, end-all in itself. The choice is ours.
Nihilism is the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism, as both eternalism and annihilationism assert the existence of a self; therefore, nihilism (the view that there never was a self to be eternal or annihilated in the first place) is, in my opinion, the Middle Way.
This view is actually quite orthodox in Theravada Buddhism and is held by the likes of Ven. Walpola Rahula. You can read his explanation here: (https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-doctrine-of-no-soul)
I've said it before...I think there are Buddhists...particularly many Western Buddhists...not necessarily you...who think it's very cool and esoteric to have this kind of discussion. It makes them part of an inner circle. While, quite frankly, I find most of Buddha's teaching rather down to earth and simple to understand. Interestingly, I don't find many old world Buddhists dwelling on the topic.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to depend on the notion of a basic particle of which the universe is made, which is wrongly perceived by us as various real forms. Nothing is real except the most basic particle. Which is they way you described it in an earlier post, I believe.
In his Mulamadhyamakakarika, Nagarjuna has soundly refuted the idea that a partless particle can exist. To my satisfaction, at least.
He has shown us that nothing exists inherently.
Yet things appear to exist. That cannot be denied, and Nagarjuna does not deny it.
Things, including self, exist only as they appear. No more, no less. No hidden meaning or eternal soul on an epic quest. No tiny particles that are more real than everything else.
So, form is empty, completely empty. It does not exist. Yet we perceive it.
As you have said, self cannot be found, wherever you look. Yet we seem to feel as though we exist.
So we are ephemeral selves witnessing wonders, in a moment to moment changing, completly empty, universe.
I think that to follow the Middle Way is to be free from views.
To see the world clearly, right now. Empty and fleeting, yet sparkling and deep.
No need to be constantly trying to explain it to ourselves. At least we should try to keep it to a minimum.
You'll have to forgive me for not being able to source what I'm about to say (perhaps someone can come to my rescue) but I recall reading a particular sutta where the disciples of the Buddha asked him about using words like "I" and "me" and he said that it was permissible simply for convenience of language. If I manage to find the source again I'll cite it as soon as possible.
1. Objects can be perceived,
2. That which can be perceived can be reduced,
3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression,
4. That which is irreducible is possessive of "self," as it exists in and of itself,
5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
As far as I can tell, my logic on the matter is sound, though someone may be able to demonstrate otherwise.
Where do you think this discussion -- which is a common discussion on every Buddhist forum I've been on...over and over and over -- is getting you?
As far as I'm concerned, the reward for pursuing truth is simply learning truth; anything else is just icing on the cake.
If you (or others) want to split hairs about how "self" is defined, that's a different argument entirely. But it would seem that as far as using personal pronouns and a proper name, you and I are in agreement, Bodhi.
1. Objects can be perceived,
2. That which can be perceived can be reduced,
3. That which can be reduced must be built upon something irreducible, else you run into the problem of infinite regression,
4. That which is irreducible is possessive of "self," as it exists in and of itself,
5. Therefore, some form of reality exists, whether we perceive its true nature or not.
What is that something? According to this, there IS "self", on some level.
Is there "self", or isn't there? I thought you were arguing that there wasn't "self". What #4 says, is that there is "something", some element, that exists independently of dependent origination.
And why is the fact that something can be reduced even relevant? Why should we care if something can be reduced? And who gets to decide how it should be reduced? Do we deconstruct the cake by taking it apart until it's crumbs? We can't take it apart by it's component parts (eggs, flour, etc.), because those components have morphed via mixing, and application of heat. So the original analogy doesn't work, anyway.
What makes a car a car is the combination of all the parts. Otherwise it's not a car. But so what? We still have to get out of the way if it's speeding towards us, because it is real.
Have you ever asked a lama about your theory, Bodhi? I was told it has nothing to do with reducing objects to sub-atomic particles.
So yes, in my view, "self" does exist on the elementary particle level; it does not, however, exist at the level of reducible entities (such as humans.) Did you ever read the other thread which I linked to you? I believe I've explained the significance of reductionism and the role in plays on our concept of "self" in the initial post and others there. For example, how could you reasonably assert that your body is "you" when it can be reduced to approximately 75 trillion cells, all of which live, operate, replicate, and die independently from you? The same method of reduction can be applied to the rest of the aggregates, including other things like cars and cakes. You could start by doing that, yes, and you'd just continue reducing until you reached the fundamental building blocks -- the elementary particles. It doesn't matter which aspect of the cake you choose to reduce, eventually you're going to reach the same destination, no matter how you go about reducing it. The fact that the component parts have seemingly ceased to exist simply by rearranging their particles through mixing and the application of heat just goes to show that things like eggs are just a concept that lack any true self. They're simply particles arranged egg-wise. Mix up the particles and all of a sudden the egg is gone. But do you know what's still there? The elementary particles. As I've said before, I'm not denying that a car exists as a combination of particles arranged in a way that we call "car"; of course it does. I'm simply asserting that the car has no intrinsic existence -- no "self." I've tried talking to a llama about my views before, but it just stared at me and then went back to eating its hay
In all seriousness, though, no; however, if I did and they simply replied "nope, that's wrong," it wouldn't change my views in the least. The lama would actually have to provide a compelling refutation of my view. What my claim comes down to is really nothing more than "besides elementary particles, nothing possesses intrinsic existence, only reducible, impermanent, dependent, and subjective existence."
But they did have minds and a long tradition of meditation and delving into the human condition, all that is required to observe and made conclusions about what it means to live within this reality. So they were authorities on the ultimate nature of humanity. Buddha was the Einstein of the time. Buddha's observations on the condition of the mind and what it takes to eliminate suffering have withstood the test of time.
So when it comes to the eternal question of why does the universe exist, we either end up in the world of quantum mathematics where nonsense becomes the norm, or if we're more interested in metaphysics, we still end up at a point where nonsense becomes the norm.
That doesn't mean there's no difference between physics and metaphysics. For instance, how can something come from nothing? Well, in physics it entirely depends on your definition of nothing.
I think in this regard we have a difference of opinion. You say the Buddha DID teach nihilism, and I've been taught he didn't. So we just have to agree to disagree, I guess. :-/
I found Madhyamaka frustrating at first. Because it does not provide any information about how things are. Only how they are not.
Now when I start to daydream about different possibilities for the nature of reality, nothing really sticks. I don't seem to need to have some kind of fixed view or understanding like I once did.
It turns out that maintaining a view of how I believed things to be was much more work than just looking around to see what is going on, and acting accordingly.