What does it mean TO EXIST from buddhist POV?

[Jyoti]

Those sharp enough to follow it are sharp enough to see its limitations.

Once one understands the implications of those limitations in terms of all thinking about 'exist, not exist, both exist, neither exist', mahāśūnya is fully realized.

What exists has to do with the permanent basis such as dharmakaya, dharmadhatu, nirvana, etc. And also the function of such basis, such as the conditional component of thinking, delusion or awakening. These two are inseparable and distinct, both co-exist as opposed to an absolute void.

[Nosta]

Please,I ask EVB* to use complete words. People like me, that speak other languages and dont speak english, its very hard to find the meaning of some "words" like POV. Now I see: Point of View.

EBV*: everybody. Isnt bodring when you dont get the meaning of words like this?

Besides, it looks much more clean and, so to say, professional, when you use complete words, unless its a real acronym or abbreviation, like UFO.

[Music]

I posted a thread regarding this. My thoughts in a few words: we don't exist as a thing but as a process. That would then mean 'we' don't really exist; only the process does.

[Jyoti]

I posted a thread regarding this. My thoughts in a few words: we don't exist as a thing but as a process. That would then mean 'we' don't really exist; only the process does.

If 'we' = 'process', then if the 'process' exists, then it is the 'we' that exist. Only the name changes, not the content, and the content is the same as existing. Disregard the flawed logic, there is also no basis being stated for such process to exist.

jyoti

[Music]

I posted a thread regarding this. My thoughts in a few words: we don't exist as a thing but as a process. That would then mean 'we' don't really exist; only the process does.

If 'we' = 'process', then if the 'process' exists, then it is the 'we' that exist. Only the name changes, not the content, and the content is the same as existing. Disregard the flawed logic, there is also no basis being stated for such process to exist.

jyoti

If we are a process and not a thing, then are we 'we'?

[conebeckham]

Gotta agree with that^ post of Jyoti's, Music.

Concluding that there is no stable, fixed entity, but a process or continuum, is a great understanding. But it is a first step.

There is also no process, or continuum, from the point of view of emptiness.

[Jyoti]

I posted a thread regarding this. My thoughts in a few words: we don't exist as a thing but as a process. That would then mean 'we' don't really exist; only the process does.

If 'we' = 'process', then if the 'process' exists, then it is the 'we' that exist. Only the name changes, not the content, and the content is the same as existing. Disregard the flawed logic, there is also no basis being stated for such process to exist.

jyoti

If we are a process and not a thing, then are we 'we'?

Your question already indicated a 'we', so of course there is a 'we' as a conventional term. However, there cannot be a process without a subject that perceive it. So if there is a process (object), then there is a subject, whatever you called the subject, or the object, it is just a term of reference.