How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

A forum for those wishing to discuss Buddhist history and teachings in the Western academic manner, referencing appropriate sources.
Kenneth Chan
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:52 am

conebeckham wrote:I think it would be more clear to specifically say that you are using a very specific interpretation of so-called "Madhyamaka." I gather from a little research that you've also used Shakespeare as a basis for reflecting some sort of "spiritual truth" if, in fact, this is your work as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Quintessence-Dus ... 059531337X

I have no real ax to grind, despite what you or others might think, regarding your projects. But the main point of most of your critics must be understood--that main point is that, for the majority of Tibetan Buddhists, and perhaps for the majority of Buddhists, the idea that there is anything germane to be said about the physical world, the material world, phenomena in general, apart from their emptiness, to be found in Madhyamaka is not an acceptable statement. Simply stated, under no analysis phenomena appear and function. Once one subjects any phenomena to an analysis using Madhyamaka, no ontological statement whatsoever can be made. It really does boil down to the crux of "conventional existence" and what that means. Some here have said that they have no problem asserting a mode of existence to phenomena, while others of us have made it clear that any such assertion is flawed. If the latter is true, then your project is due to fail--under our understanding of Madhyamaka, Prajnaparamita, etc.

So if you are addressing the general public, I would recommend changing the title of this whole project to "How Tsong Khapa's Madhyamaka Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics."


If I change the title as you suggest, it would almost mean that quantum physics provides scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa is correct. Perhaps that really is the case, but are you sure you want me to suggest that?

In any case, you are continuing to misrepresent the Madhyamaka interpretation according to Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Lama Tsongkhapa. I have already made this plea earlier. Please try to represent an interpretation correctly before criticising it. Otherwise it just causes confusion for no good reason.

I do not have access to a computer or good internet connection at the moment, so it is hard for me to respond to posts at this time.

(Also, I am the author of "Quintessence of Dust: The Mystical Meaning of Hamlet" but I am certainly not using Shakespeare to interpret Madhyamaka.)

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:29 am

Kenneth Chan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:I think it would be more clear to specifically say that you are using a very specific interpretation of so-called "Madhyamaka." I gather from a little research that you've also used Shakespeare as a basis for reflecting some sort of "spiritual truth" if, in fact, this is your work as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Quintessence-Dus ... 059531337X

I have no real ax to grind, despite what you or others might think, regarding your projects. But the main point of most of your critics must be understood--that main point is that, for the majority of Tibetan Buddhists, and perhaps for the majority of Buddhists, the idea that there is anything germane to be said about the physical world, the material world, phenomena in general, apart from their emptiness, to be found in Madhyamaka is not an acceptable statement. Simply stated, under no analysis phenomena appear and function. Once one subjects any phenomena to an analysis using Madhyamaka, no ontological statement whatsoever can be made. It really does boil down to the crux of "conventional existence" and what that means. Some here have said that they have no problem asserting a mode of existence to phenomena, while others of us have made it clear that any such assertion is flawed. If the latter is true, then your project is due to fail--under our understanding of Madhyamaka, Prajnaparamita, etc.

So if you are addressing the general public, I would recommend changing the title of this whole project to "How Tsong Khapa's Madhyamaka Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics."


If I change the title as you suggest, it would almost mean that quantum physics provides scientific evidence that Lama Tsongkhapa is correct. Perhaps that really is the case, but are you sure you want me to suggest that?


If you think that merely changing the title would add "weight" to your assertion, be my guest. I will continue to disagree with your conclusion.

In any case, you are continuing to misrepresent the Madhyamaka interpretation according to Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Lama Tsongkhapa. I have already made this plea earlier. Please try to represent an interpretation correctly before criticising it. Otherwise it just causes confusion for no good reason.


Kenneth, I can assure you that I understand Tsongkhapa's presentation pretty well. I also find that his presentation contradicts Chandrakirti in several important aspects, and that he relies on a statement of Shantideva's in an attempt to surmount these contradictions. TsongKhapa asserts that the object of negation is "inherent existence." or inherent essence, and he and his followers claim that this is the correct object of Madhyamaka analysis, and that "existence" is not to be negated wholesale. He holds that entities established through conventional valid cognition are empty of this object of negation only. However, he claims that emptiness itself is established in this object of negation as a nonimplicative negation.

For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.

I frankly think most people commenting in this thread have an imperfect understanding of TsongKhapa. Some are saying that Gelukpas do not assert a "conventional existence." I am afraid these people are merely parroting translations or presentations that do not adequately reflect TsongKhapa's interpretation, not to speak of Chandrakirti's.

Please, Kenneth, if you take issue with my representation of the basis of TsongKhapa's system, correct me. Show me my error.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:48 am

conebeckham wrote:Kenneth, I can assure you that I understand Tsongkhapa's presentation pretty well. I also find that his presentation contradicts Chandrakirti in several important aspects, and that he relies on a statement of Shantideva's in an attempt to surmount these contradictions. TsongKhapa asserts that the object of negation is "inherent existence." or inherent essence, and he and his followers claim that this is the correct object of Madhyamaka analysis, and that "existence" is not to be negated wholesale. He holds that entities established through conventional valid cognition are empty of this object of negation only. However, he claims that emptiness itself is established in this object of negation as a nonimplicative negation.

For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.

I frankly think most people commenting in this thread have an imperfect understanding of TsongKhapa. Some are saying that Gelukpas do not assert a "conventional existence." I am afraid these people are merely parroting translations or presentations that do not adequately reflect TsongKhapa's interpretation, not to speak of Chandrakirti's.

Please, Kenneth, if you take issue with my representation of the basis of TsongKhapa's system, correct me. Show me my error.


I can assure you, conebeckham, that what you posted here is a misrepresentation of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning. It begins with your steadfast refusal to understand the term "inherent existence" in accordance with what is actually meant by Chandrakirti and Lama Tsongkhapa. Until you are willing to do that, it is almost futile trying to resolve this with you.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:29 am

Kenneth Chan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Kenneth, I can assure you that I understand Tsongkhapa's presentation pretty well. I also find that his presentation contradicts Chandrakirti in several important aspects, and that he relies on a statement of Shantideva's in an attempt to surmount these contradictions. TsongKhapa asserts that the object of negation is "inherent existence." or inherent essence, and he and his followers claim that this is the correct object of Madhyamaka analysis, and that "existence" is not to be negated wholesale. He holds that entities established through conventional valid cognition are empty of this object of negation only. However, he claims that emptiness itself is established in this object of negation as a nonimplicative negation.

For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.

I frankly think most people commenting in this thread have an imperfect understanding of TsongKhapa. Some are saying that Gelukpas do not assert a "conventional existence." I am afraid these people are merely parroting translations or presentations that do not adequately reflect TsongKhapa's interpretation, not to speak of Chandrakirti's.

Please, Kenneth, if you take issue with my representation of the basis of TsongKhapa's system, correct me. Show me my error.


I can assure you, conebeckham, that what you posted here is a misrepresentation of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning. It begins with your steadfast refusal to understand the term "inherent existence" in accordance with what is actually meant by Chandrakirti and Lama Tsongkhapa. Until you are willing to do that, it is almost futile trying to resolve this with you.

Okay. Explain it to me. I understand it to mean an essential identity, an "ontological postulate." A "self" of a person, or of a phenomenon. Am I wrong?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:38 am

conebeckham wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:I can assure you, conebeckham, that what you posted here is a misrepresentation of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning. It begins with your steadfast refusal to understand the term "inherent existence" in accordance with what is actually meant by Chandrakirti and Lama Tsongkhapa. Until you are willing to do that, it is almost futile trying to resolve this with you.

Okay. Explain it to me. I understand it to mean an essential identity, an "ontological postulate." A "self" of a person, or of a phenomenon. Am I wrong?

Let me quote a sentence from the book "Emptiness" by Geshe Tashi Tsering, which is clearly a Gelug presentation of Madhyamaka:
Not finding true existence, intrinsic reality, existing from its own side - whatever term we use - by rational analysis of conventionally existing phenomena, the conclusion is reached that they do not exist in such a manner.

Note that the terms "true existence," "intrinsic reality," and "existing from its own side" are understood in this context to mean the same thing.

Right from the beginning of this thread, Malcolm and his supporters absolutely refuse to see that "inherent existence" and "true existence," in this context, are taken to mean the same thing. It is this adamant refusal to understand the meaning of "inherent exstence" in this intended sense that result in the gross misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation of Madhyamaka.

Not only is this adamant refusal to represent an interpretation correctly a waste of time, it is potentially harmful in causing confusion among those who may be genuinely trying to understand Madhyamaka.

Bakmoon
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Bakmoon » Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:15 am

Kenneth Chan wrote:Right from the beginning of this thread, Malcolm and his supporters absolutely refuse to see that "inherent existence" and "true existence," in this context, are taken to mean the same thing. It is this adamant refusal to understand the meaning of "inherent exstence" in this intended sense that result in the gross misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation of Madhyamaka.

Not only is this adamant refusal to represent an interpretation correctly a waste of time, it is potentially harmful in causing confusion among those who may be genuinely trying to understand Madhyamaka.

That is untrue. All Madhyamikas, both Gelug and non-Gelug, regard the terms "inherent existence", "true existence", "existence from its own side", and "findability under analysis" as being synonyms, and that includes Malcolm. The issue is not whether or not inherent existence is refuted. We all agree that it is. The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.

jmlee369
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:22 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby jmlee369 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:04 am

Kenneth Chan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:I can assure you, conebeckham, that what you posted here is a misrepresentation of Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning. It begins with your steadfast refusal to understand the term "inherent existence" in accordance with what is actually meant by Chandrakirti and Lama Tsongkhapa. Until you are willing to do that, it is almost futile trying to resolve this with you.

Okay. Explain it to me. I understand it to mean an essential identity, an "ontological postulate." A "self" of a person, or of a phenomenon. Am I wrong?

Let me quote a sentence from the book "Emptiness" by Geshe Tashi Tsering, which is clearly a Gelug presentation of Madhyamaka:
Not finding true existence, intrinsic reality, existing from its own side - whatever term we use - by rational analysis of conventionally existing phenomena, the conclusion is reached that they do not exist in such a manner.

Note that the terms "true existence," "intrinsic reality," and "existing from its own side" are understood in this context to mean the same thing.

Right from the beginning of this thread, Malcolm and his supporters absolutely refuse to see that "inherent existence" and "true existence," in this context, are taken to mean the same thing. It is this adamant refusal to understand the meaning of "inherent exstence" in this intended sense that result in the gross misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation of Madhyamaka.

Not only is this adamant refusal to represent an interpretation correctly a waste of time, it is potentially harmful in causing confusion among those who may be genuinely trying to understand Madhyamaka.


Hi all,

As someone whose practice is rooted in the Gelug tradition, I've tended to avoid discussions about Madhyamaka since I'm not well versed in it, but I think it's worth making a few points after following most (but not all) of this thread.

First, I think it is necessary for people on the Gelug side to actually quote directly from the root text, authoritative Indian commentaries, and the works of Lama Tsongkhapa and show the relations between the three to back up our assertions, especially the reasoning Lama Tsongkhapa used when he strayed from mainstream Tibetan Prasangika Madhyamaka.

In this particular case, the objections Kenneth is making seems to be moot, because the problem is not that people are failing to see the equivalence of inherent existence and true existence, the problem is that the need for the qualifing term "inherent" is an innovation of Tsongkhapa. That's why Tsongkhapa writes at length in works like Ocean of Reasoning and the Lamrim Chenmo in defence of his position, narrowing the scope of negation. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, you have to admit (as he writes in his own words) that he is reading the qualifier "inherent" into the Indian source texts.

Second, I think it is rather unfair that the non-Gelugpas have someone as learned as Loppon Malcolm, while the Gelugpas don't have a geshe around to defend our view. With all due respect, I can't help but feel that the Gelugpas here have a limited understanding of the Gelug position given very few non-Tibetan/Mongolians have access to the formal training that our lineage is known for.

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:11 pm

Bakmoon wrote:All Madhyamikas, both Gelug and non-Gelug, regard the terms "inherent existence", "true existence", "existence from its own side", and "findability under analysis" as being synonyms, and that includes Malcolm. The issue is not whether or not inherent existence is refuted. We all agree that it is. The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.

Glad to hear that. Does that mean then that you agree that this comment below by conebeckham is a misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation?:
conebeckham wrote:For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.
Last edited by Kenneth Chan on Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Matt J » Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:02 pm

I think there is a tendency to make these things too complicated. I don't think that Madhyamaka is that complicated--- the core concepts are rather simple. What is difficult is truly absorbing it so that it isn't just an idea but a lived experience.

If one needs a geshe degree to understand the Gelug position, then it would have little relevance to the vast majority of the world. I don't believe it, and I don't think the Gelugs do, either otherwise they wouldn't be teaching it to lay Westerners.

jmlee369 wrote:Second, I think it is rather unfair that the non-Gelugpas have someone as learned as Loppon Malcolm, while the Gelugpas don't have a geshe around to defend our view. With all due respect, I can't help but feel that the Gelugpas here have a limited understanding of the Gelug position given very few non-Tibetan/Mongolians have access to the formal training that our lineage is known for.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 21698
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:34 pm

Bakmoon wrote:The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.


The question also is whether or not asserting that the ultimate is only the negation of inherent existence leaves the consequence of asserting that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


So called “sentient beings” are merely delusions self-appearing from the dhātu of luminosity.

-- Ju Mipham

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:44 pm

jmlee369 wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Okay. Explain it to me. I understand it to mean an essential identity, an "ontological postulate." A "self" of a person, or of a phenomenon. Am I wrong?

Let me quote a sentence from the book "Emptiness" by Geshe Tashi Tsering, which is clearly a Gelug presentation of Madhyamaka:
Not finding true existence, intrinsic reality, existing from its own side - whatever term we use - by rational analysis of conventionally existing phenomena, the conclusion is reached that they do not exist in such a manner.

Note that the terms "true existence," "intrinsic reality," and "existing from its own side" are understood in this context to mean the same thing.

Right from the beginning of this thread, Malcolm and his supporters absolutely refuse to see that "inherent existence" and "true existence," in this context, are taken to mean the same thing. It is this adamant refusal to understand the meaning of "inherent exstence" in this intended sense that result in the gross misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation of Madhyamaka.

Not only is this adamant refusal to represent an interpretation correctly a waste of time, it is potentially harmful in causing confusion among those who may be genuinely trying to understand Madhyamaka.


Hi all,

As someone whose practice is rooted in the Gelug tradition, I've tended to avoid discussions about Madhyamaka since I'm not well versed in it, but I think it's worth making a few points after following most (but not all) of this thread.

First, I think it is necessary for people on the Gelug side to actually quote directly from the root text, authoritative Indian commentaries, and the works of Lama Tsongkhapa and show the relations between the three to back up our assertions, especially the reasoning Lama Tsongkhapa used when he strayed from mainstream Tibetan Prasangika Madhyamaka.

In this particular case, the objections Kenneth is making seems to be moot, because the problem is not that people are failing to see the equivalence of inherent existence and true existence, the problem is that the need for the qualifing term "inherent" is an innovation of Tsongkhapa. That's why Tsongkhapa writes at length in works like Ocean of Reasoning and the Lamrim Chenmo in defence of his position, narrowing the scope of negation. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, you have to admit (as he writes in his own words) that he is reading the qualifier "inherent" into the Indian source texts.

Second, I think it is rather unfair that the non-Gelugpas have someone as learned as Loppon Malcolm, while the Gelugpas don't have a geshe around to defend our view. With all due respect, I can't help but feel that the Gelugpas here have a limited understanding of the Gelug position given very few non-Tibetan/Mongolians have access to the formal training that our lineage is known for.

Thanks for your reply. You saved me some typing.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:47 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:All Madhyamikas, both Gelug and non-Gelug, regard the terms "inherent existence", "true existence", "existence from its own side", and "findability under analysis" as being synonyms, and that includes Malcolm. The issue is not whether or not inherent existence is refuted. We all agree that it is. The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.

Glad to hear that. Does that mean then that you agree that this comment below by conebeckham is a misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation?:
conebeckham wrote:For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.

Now that we've clarified, thanks to Jmlee369, that we all agree that there is no inherent existence of table... Would you like to tackle what is left? Maybe address your quoted source's unanswered question:
Not finding true existence, intrinsic reality, existing from its own side - whatever term we use - by rational analysis of conventionally existing phenomena, the conclusion is reached that they do not exist in such a manner.

Okay, then...In what manner (if any) do they exist?
Last edited by conebeckham on Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Bakmoon
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Bakmoon » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:52 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:All Madhyamikas, both Gelug and non-Gelug, regard the terms "inherent existence", "true existence", "existence from its own side", and "findability under analysis" as being synonyms, and that includes Malcolm. The issue is not whether or not inherent existence is refuted. We all agree that it is. The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.

Glad to hear that. Does that mean then that you agree that this comment below by conebeckham is a misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation?:
conebeckham wrote:For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.

His first sentence is a correct presentation of Gelug Madhyamaka. The second one I would take issue with because the conventional sense in which things are not refuted in Gelug Madhyamaka is really not some kind of ontological existence at the level of convention, because this unrefuted 'leftover' is just the designation of 'table', not an actual table. As long as this key point is born in mind, I think it isn't worth arguing over purely semantic issues. However, it is vital that these subtleties in Gelug are properly understood. Je Tsongkhapa's presentation of Madhyamaka is valid IMO, but that doesn't mean that everyone's understanding of it is.

Jeff H
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Jeff H » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:23 pm

This really is outside the Quantum topic, and I was taken by jmlee369 and Matt J's posts. I've started a new thread in the Gelug forum here, if anyone wishes to join me.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Minobu » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:08 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.


The question also is whether or not asserting that the ultimate is only the negation of inherent existence leaves the consequence of asserting that the ultimate is a nonexistence.

Bingo malcolm.
from that i get the point of the "view" is an exercise in seeing the middle way. it's neither nihilistic or inherent but somewhere in between.
a challenge if one is going to argue what inherent means . for me inherency it means there is no room for change.


edit
further thought on the matter ...inherent means it is a thing existing on it's own volition.
We are living in an Orwellian 1984 Nightmare

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:07 pm

Bakmoon wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:All Madhyamikas, both Gelug and non-Gelug, regard the terms "inherent existence", "true existence", "existence from its own side", and "findability under analysis" as being synonyms, and that includes Malcolm. The issue is not whether or not inherent existence is refuted. We all agree that it is. The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.

Glad to hear that. Does that mean then that you agree that this comment below by conebeckham is a misrepresentation of the Gelug interpretation?:
conebeckham wrote:For example, the convention "Table" is not empty of "table" in TsongKhapa's system, but instead, it is empty of "inherent Table." One is then left with a table--which somehow exists or bears ontological meaning.

His first sentence is a correct presentation of Gelug Madhyamaka. The second one I would take issue with because the conventional sense in which things are not refuted in Gelug Madhyamaka is really not some kind of ontological existence at the level of convention, because this unrefuted 'leftover' is just the designation of 'table', not an actual table. As long as this key point is born in mind, I think it isn't worth arguing over purely semantic issues. However, it is vital that these subtleties in Gelug are properly understood. Je Tsongkhapa's presentation of Madhyamaka is valid IMO, but that doesn't mean that everyone's understanding of it is.


Well, what is the object that bears the designation?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

Bakmoon
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Bakmoon » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:07 pm

conebeckham wrote:Well, what is the object that bears the designation?

'Table' is designated on appearances.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4127
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:29 pm

Bakmoon wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Well, what is the object that bears the designation?

'Table' is designated on appearances.

Accepted only at the level of convention, of worldly people, correct? In other words, both the appearance, and the imputed concept, are thoroughly false?
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."

May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby cloudburst » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:46 pm

conebeckham wrote:Now that we've clarified, thanks to Jmlee369, that we all agree that there is no inherent existence of table... Would you like to tackle what is left? Maybe address your quoted source's unanswered question:
Not finding true existence, intrinsic reality, existing from its own side - whatever term we use - by rational analysis of conventionally existing phenomena, the conclusion is reached that they do not exist in such a manner.

Okay, then...In what manner (if any) do they exist?


This has already been clearly answered with quotes from original sources.

this "thing" appears to the worldly as inherently existent. We are not negating some abstract principle called inherent existence, we are refuting the existence ( ,nonexistence, both and neither) of the inherently existing vase that seems to appear. There is not an inherent existence that "stands apart from the vase itself."

Once this thing, the vase. has been eliminated, we see the dependent arising mere conventionality that is the vase, like an illusion

Aryadeva:

So, when you analyze in this way, things are not established as intrinsically existent; hence, the illusoriness of individual things is left as a remainder

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 312
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby cloudburst » Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:48 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:The question is whether or not negating inherent existence is a sufficiently broad negation.


The question also is whether or not asserting that the ultimate is only the negation of inherent existence leaves the consequence of asserting that the ultimate is a nonexistence.


This is not an important question as lack of inherent existence has the same meaning as freedom from extremes.


Return to “Academic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kenneth Chan and 16 guests