Johnny Dangerous wrote:ground wrote:Johnny Dangerous wrote:My basic understanding of "form is emptiness" on just an intellectual level is just that what defines a thing as that thing..is the very lack of inherent existence of the thing.
For example we call a car a car, but in the component parts of a car there is no car, therefore "car" is empty, the same goes for anything that manifests or is conceviable, including the Skandhas that make up well...everything. that's why form is actually emptiness, anything we can name or conceptualize is fundamentally empty of itself, and in fact is defined by this characteristic.
Empty words. No meaning does inhere in these words. Just visible forms.
Yes, obviously my words also would share the same property..your point is?
Rakshasa wrote:"Form is empty" simply means that this world is illusory. Just like how in your dream, you see the form of a beautiful girl, you can touch her, you can smell her fragrance, and you could probably also have sex with her and get orgasmic pleasure, in the same way this "real" world is also such that all these feelings, sensations etc based on form are null.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:For some reason it's this very common thing to tell people to "not think", yet what I wrote is very standard Buddhist philosophy, that can be found in plenty of well-known explanations of emptiness. Is there some reason it seems to provoke people to tell others they think too much?
We all know intellectualizing a thing is not the same as realization of it, i'm not sure that needs to be pointed out.
Users browsing this forum: Wayfarer and 18 guests