1 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2022
    1. let me make a few comments if i may about time from nagarjuna's perspective there is no 01:25:52 time i don't think i can be more brief and how does he support that he says well when you're in the present moment there's no past and there's no future 01:26:06 if you dissect the present moment even to a more granular present moment some of that's going to be passed some of that's going to be yet to come and then you have even a finer more 01:26:18 granular present moment if you keep going on with that granularity you end up having no time you have no past no future and no presence so that's kind of in a nutshell some of the arguments or 01:26:32 logic that knock arjuna nagarjuna uses to establish no time now of course what he means is there's no absolute time there's no time on a some there's no essence of time um there is you know 01:26:46 time from the perspective of of of conventionality um cause and effect is reciprocal so when we have a cause we have an effect or we know there's 01:26:59 going to be an effect but also from the point of view of the effect the result we know that there must have been a cause so this reciprocality is something unique to the highest 01:27:10 school of prasannika majamaka uh within the fourth highest school of majamaca i just wanted to mention that to to round out one of our previous discussions

      Barry points out Nagarjuna's analysis of time leads to the conclusion that there is no absolute present, past or future.

      It is difficult to fathom the full import of what this means. If time exists conventionally but not absolutely, what are the implications of this?

      Also, there are Buddhist arguments that hold that there is no causality because A and B are different, how could A ever cause B? This has not been discussed here yet.