[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 29
nomadeva at yahoo.com
Sat Jun 14 06:50:06 CDT 2003
--- Nagarjuna Siddhartha <nagarjunasiddhartha at yahoo.com> wrote:
> It is surprising that you talk about something called
> "eternally dependant self-nature" because there is no
> such thing. Self-nature of an object, by definition
> cannot be eternally dependant on something else for
> its existence.
That is by your definition. Self-nature of an object is what describes
the object (roughly speaking). There is no criterion like 'dependency'
should not be an attribute of that 'self-nature' or its definition.
One question: Do you have some basis in buddhism? pratItya-samutpAda
vAda? This (wrong) argument comes from there, AFAIK.
p.s. I am clearing my mails from bottom. If somebody has answered this
question of yours, ignore my mail. Thx.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list