Truly Exist, dependently exist, dependently ceased, truly not existing

[yeshe.tenley]

@Dogen

I didn’t think I made such a distinction, but perhaps it came across that way. I was just using emptiness in general.

I apologize if I misread your post to include this assumption. Glad we’re on the same page now.

@Dogen

This is precisely my argument for being pragmatic with altruism - Nile river is samsara, dukkha, insubstantial and empty yet source of suffering. Nibbāna, in contrast, is the absence of the river, absence of samsara, absence of suffering. All kamma is ultimately dukkha, and the teacher explains the way to cessation of kamma.

The word ‘ultimately’ makes me think you are saying that either kamma or dukkha has substantial existence. You probably didn’t intend that, but these words to me signify something going on in the mind that drifts towards substantialist thinking. At least that is what I recognize in myself.

@Dogen

A truth proposition doesn’t have to be substantial to be true. None of teacher’s arguments have a substantial soul, yet they are true.

That’s true! A truth proposition is insubstantially true. For the god it is true that the liquid is ambrosia. For the human it is true that it is water. For the hungry ghost it is true that it is pus and blood. Truth is dependent and conditional and a convention. It has no substantial existence. Even mathematical truth is like this! It depends upon the axioms of the mathematical system which have to be assumed in order to arrive at truth. No mathematical system is capable of proving the truth of itself.

@Dogen

Otherwise, we can run into some weird paradox statements. For example: If insubstialness of things as a truth proposition, being insubstantial itself, should be let go, it’ll result in the proposition that things do have a substantial nature. Hallelujah, Moses was right! Then there’s an eternal soul, things are permanent, evil deeds can result in good fruits, one should cultivate a heart of hatred for nibbāna, so on and forth.

This relies upon the Law of the Excluded Middle to arrive at that paradox. The Law of the Excluded Middle is an assumption that does not need to be assumed.

@Dogen

Thanks for entertaining my query, I guess we’re just not going to see eye to eye on this. I would enjoy discussing this elsewhere if you cared, we’re probably stealing the topic with this here.

You’re very welcome and again I apologize for misunderstanding you or misreading you. If you want to talk about this further I’d be happy to, but like you said we should find a dedicated thread I guess.