07-25-2010, 12:06 AM
Tiff wrote:Okay, so you say you don't know and its interesting to note that Nagarjuna does not explain or prove essence, he negates it. He shows how it cannot "be" what its believed by many to be. Those that believe it have not fully examined their own beliefs to see that such beliefs cannot be accounted for.
You thus far have stated previously that we each have individual essences and also its permanent nature. So you state you know about essence (to some degree). But when it comes to the exisitence of essence you say you don't know.
Whoa. I did not negate essence, nor deny its existence...I said I didn't know its origin.
You asked
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh?
Tiff wrote:Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.I agree.
Tiff wrote:If your answer had been "no essence was never created", I would then say, "then it never began, thus it cannot endure, and will never dissolve (Nagarjuna chapter). This only characterizes one quality, emptiness.What about the third alternative? It has always been?
You thus far have stated previously that we each have individual essences and also its permanent nature. So you state you know about essence (to some degree). But when it comes to the exisitence of essence you say you don't know.
Whoa. I did not negate essence, nor deny its existence...I said I didn't know its origin.
You asked
In your view, is essence something that has been created... or it was not , nor never will be, created?
I'm not sure how Nagarjuna negates it, either, since some THING must be doing the negating, eh?
Tiff wrote:Truly I was expecting a yes or no answer from you : ) I thought you'd either say yes it was created or no essence was not ever created. I had responses prepared in the event of either answer.
So lets say you said yes essence was created. I would have said "by who?", and then whoever that was (or whatever that was) we would have to account for their creation and then we have "infinite regress", like dominoes through eternity, because as long as we claim a creation of something (in this case essence) we have to account for a creator and then the creator's creator, etc. The dilemma of first cause.I agree.
Tiff wrote:If your answer had been "no essence was never created", I would then say, "then it never began, thus it cannot endure, and will never dissolve (Nagarjuna chapter). This only characterizes one quality, emptiness.What about the third alternative? It has always been?