In the case of the Pali canon, the Buddha always re-orients the questions whenever asked about the nature of the universe or of reality, to teach the "noble truths" of suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path to its cessation. I am not aware of any text in the Pali canon where the Buddha would be teaching in order to see "things as they are". It is just not the point of his teaching.
A central concept in Buddhism is actually "emptiness", or the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena. It is sometimes used in Mahayana teachings as "the way things really are", but as I said, this is subtle and confusing, because "the way things really are" is that they do not have independent existence. I would not venture interpreting those strands of teaching too much, as I am not famliar enough with them.
I heard those arguments from various sources, mostly from Thanissaro Bikkhu and Rob Burbea. They are both westerners, formed in the Theravada tradition and scholars of the Pali canon (able to read it in the original language), which I think actually makes them particularly well suited to identify points that might be misinterpreted from a western reader.
> "emptiness", or the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena
Phenomena is empty of a permanent self but not empty of existence. The phenomena exists, but that phenomena is not possessed of a permanent unchanging nature.
The Bahiya Sutta has:
> "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen."
A central concept in Buddhism is actually "emptiness", or the absence of inherent existence of all phenomena. It is sometimes used in Mahayana teachings as "the way things really are", but as I said, this is subtle and confusing, because "the way things really are" is that they do not have independent existence. I would not venture interpreting those strands of teaching too much, as I am not famliar enough with them.
I heard those arguments from various sources, mostly from Thanissaro Bikkhu and Rob Burbea. They are both westerners, formed in the Theravada tradition and scholars of the Pali canon (able to read it in the original language), which I think actually makes them particularly well suited to identify points that might be misinterpreted from a western reader.