You are talking about the translation. As long as it conveys the meaning according to the context, I don’t have any problem. Besides, I am not a translator. Yes, someone has translation and proofreading skills; if he feels "this translation of tibetan to english is quite bad/incorrect", he can invest his time and standardize it.tomschwarz wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:12 pmLeaving aside the super interesting debate about translation, because i bet this translation of tibetan to english is quite bad/incorrect, please in your own voice, based on your own understanding haha, questions:haha wrote: ↑ all things are clearly apparent yet do not truly exist ... all these manifestations are temporary, adventitious phenomena.
From above quote:1) What does truly exist (other than our beloved dependent origination)? Does the planet earth exist (for 4 billion years so far)?
"Though things arise, none of them has any independent nature whatsoever." Its meaning is very clear.
Please check out meaning of the emptiness: how many aspects it does cover.
How do you know it exits for 4 billion years?
For deluded perception, there is deluded experience.2) Can something go in and out of existance? Like the human being sidartha gauthama?
If you search existence, you cannot find existence. If you cannot find existence, then there is no such thing as in and out.
The text which I have quoted is talking from the fully awaken aspect. The meaning will not convey for general talk, even conceptually, if one does not have general background for this text. Its meaning is difficult to those who have subtle grasping for existence and non-existence. It is just like a person who is burning by passion tries to assert the mental state of “(an arhat) with enemies destroyed, defilements depleted, with desire departed, senses tamed”. Or, person, who has never entered the trance, is trying to assert the trance state. To know the answer of your question, it is better to read Longchen's full text.3) is everything an illusion? If no, what is not an illusion? Is happiness an illusion? Fyi in standard english illusion means:
an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience. So if all of buddha dharma does not exist, if its all an illusion, then is perception as a whole the wrong way to go?