My take on the basic philosophical position of the EBT's

[josephzizys]

@srkris

I dont understand what you mean by this abstraction

Its a paraphrase of DN1, DN2 and DN9.

A “real” existant could not “depend” on variables like time or space or a part-whole relationship without the “real” existant being conditional on those things. A “really” real thing should exist “unconditionally”.

Basically the buddha critiqued the idea that there could be things that simply “exist” as “reals” in a niave way.

@srkris

and how it fits with what Buddha said about anything.

As I say, see for starters DN1 DN2 and DN9, then for furthur reading see my thread here:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, the undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (or both, or neither) The undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas. The undeclared points are a number of questions, typically ten, but sometimes as few as two, as at SN44.10, and sometimes as many as 11, as at AN10.95, and often 4, as at SN12.17. This essay focuses on the standard set of ten, and looks at the differing explanations given for the Buddha’s silence in the different suttas. We first see the undeclared points introduced at DN1 and DN2, where they are used to…

For the most famous articulation of this thesis outside the ebt see Nagarjuna’s Mulamadyamikakarika, I recommend Jones, but there are plenty of translations around.

For some reading about the broader issues involved I highly recommend the Oxford handbook of Metaphysics.

Good luck!