impermanence
impermanence
i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
Re: impermanence
When you find that moment of change, the essential impermanence, you find emptiness.5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
/magnus
"We are all here to help each other go through this thing, whatever it is."
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
~Kurt Vonnegut
"The principal practice is Guruyoga. But we need to understand that any secondary practice combined with Guruyoga becomes a principal practice." ChNNR (Teachings on Thun and Ganapuja)
Re: impermanence
according to emptiness its which one?
the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?
the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?
Re: impermanence
i think the problem lies in the fact that we believe that the cup exists before it breaks.5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
the cup manifests but never enters existence.
i think that means that although the cup appears it doesnt mean that it appears in a non deceptive way.
an example would be a mirage in the dessert.we think is something solid but when we get closer we discover that there is nothing there.
The cup needs to be investigated for its "cupness" first.
If after a thorough investigation we find the cup, that would mean that it can never break.
Re: impermanence
The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth. The problem, in my mind, is that we divorce the "cup" from the earth and wish to fix it in that form. But it cannot be fixed, because there is nothing to fix it to!
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: impermanence
A cup is labeled a cup by a mind. The designation cup means .... what? I was once told by a Zen teacher that the term cup only meant something conventional to drink liquids from. I told her she was wrong because for years I only used cups to measure rice and almost never drank from a cup. I distinguished between a cup and a glass.5heaps wrote:according to emptiness its which one?
the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?
In your example, when does a cup become non-functional (ie. it can't reasonably be labeled a cup anymore)?
An actual cup is never there to begin with.or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?
Kirt
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
Re: impermanence
Since he expresses it so much more precisely than I can, I quote Geshe Jampa Tegchok who says:
Things are produced, but not inherently. Production is not self-existent and although things cease, there is no inherent cessation. There is no inherent stopping of things. When things cease, their cessation is not self-existent. The lack of inherent production and cessation is emptiness. http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=author&id=50
There's also a good discussion about Nagajuna's analysis of inherent existence here http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/Open% ... ndoor1.htm
Things are produced, but not inherently. Production is not self-existent and although things cease, there is no inherent cessation. There is no inherent stopping of things. When things cease, their cessation is not self-existent. The lack of inherent production and cessation is emptiness. http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=author&id=50
There's also a good discussion about Nagajuna's analysis of inherent existence here http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/Open% ... ndoor1.htm
Both of your statements seem to assume that the cup is inherently existent but my guess is that the cup ceases to exist for you (ie non-inherently - if there is such a word!) at the moment it breaks.5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
~Chatral Rinpoche
Re: impermanence
a cup can break but not end? thats very absurd, because then the cup would then still exist at the time of the shards.Matt J wrote:The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth.
likewise mere ceramic is not a cup. a cup is produced by causes and conditions, just one of which is the material cause of the ceramic after having being dug from the earth. however, a cup is not merely the material of the ceramic, as you state.
that just means that the cup doesnt exist the way it appears. this doesnt negate its existence. this does not negate production and cessation, and does not bypass there being an answer to the questionalpha wrote:an example would be a mirage in the dessert.we think is something solid but when we get closer we discover that there is nothing there.
that the label/boundary is set by me, and that our labels differ between us, is irrelevantkirtu wrote:In your example, when does a cup become non-functional (ie. it can't reasonably be labeled a cup anymore)?
the physical parts that are designated as cup at some point come apart and the boundary 'cup' no longer works.
i am not asking about the conception of the boundary, i am asking how is it that the physical parts which function in a certain way such that it can be called a cup, fall apart.
so let me restate the question for a person whose mind has been affected by tenets:
is it that the physical collection which is fit to be called 'cup' is there and then it breaks?
or is that the collection which is fit to be called 'cup' is already gone by the time of the breaking?
thanks for answering the questionpunya wrote:my guess is that the cup ceases to exist for you (ie non-inherently - if there is such a word!) at the moment it breaks.
my question is about this final moment when it breaks.......is the cup there when it breaks? if its there, doesnt that means its not broken?
Re: impermanence
Not easy to drink tea out of some pieces, doesn't "function" so well.5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
The nonexistent duality of mind-cup while drinking tea...
“We are each living in our own soap opera. We do not see things as they really are. We see only our interpretations. This is because our minds are always so busy...But when the mind calms down, it becomes clear. This mental clarity enables us to see things as they really are, instead of projecting our commentary on everything.” Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg9jOYnEUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg9jOYnEUA
-
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:53 pm
Re: impermanence
Things end when you say "Well that's it for that piece of crap!"
Re: impermanence
but how did it get that way?muni wrote:Not easy to drink tea out of some pieces, doesn't "function" so well.5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
is the cup there at the time of its ending?
or is the cup already gone at the time of its ending?
if the cup has already gone by the time of its ending, how can we say it was "ITS" ending ie. there is no cup there to end.
Re: impermanence
5heaps wrote:but how did it get that way?muni wrote:Not easy to drink tea out of some pieces, doesn't "function" so well.5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it breaks?
is the cup there at the time of its ending?
or is the cup already gone at the time of its ending?
if the cup has already gone by the time of its ending, how can we say it was "ITS" ending ie. there is no cup there to end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KtSmXHmiqA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWiIMiEt ... ion_461210
“We are each living in our own soap opera. We do not see things as they really are. We see only our interpretations. This is because our minds are always so busy...But when the mind calms down, it becomes clear. This mental clarity enables us to see things as they really are, instead of projecting our commentary on everything.” Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg9jOYnEUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg9jOYnEUA
Re: impermanence
A chipped cup - the cup exists at the time of it's shards (shards not shown and probably thrown away).5heaps wrote:a cup can break but not end? thats very absurd, because then the cup would then still exist at the time of the shards.Matt J wrote:The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth.
A physical force acts on a material and is translated through the material. If the material has a certain rigidity then the material will begin to bend because the force can't translate through the material. The force will then tend to cause breaks where the material is weaker than in other places. In many materials these run in "veins" (just not literal veins). Materials made from earth and glass display this property. Materials made from wood are more resistant and tend to require more of a force.i am asking how is it that the physical parts which function in a certain way such that it can be called a cup, fall apart.
On another level, the cup ceases to be labeled a cup when a mind labels it ruined (then it might label the former cup a "ruined cup") and throws it away.
Kirt
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
Re: impermanence
The cup as an existent cup is never there to begin with (so it doesn't exist). It's just an object you have labeled that can function in a certain way. The "cuppness" is just it's function not an actual ontological property (because it functions in a way to permit it's label as a cup it doesn't not exist).5heaps wrote:thanks for answering the questionpunya wrote:my guess is that the cup ceases to exist for you (ie non-inherently - if there is such a word!) at the moment it breaks.
my question is about this final moment when it breaks.......is the cup there when it breaks? if its there, doesnt that means its not broken?
Kirt
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”
"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.
"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
- Karma Dondrup Tashi
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm
Re: impermanence
Yes.5heaps wrote:the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
Re: impermanence
ah, come on. our usage of "a cup breaking" is that the cup ends ie. a cup is no longer there because it broke/ended. when a cup has a chip in it it is still a cup ie. has not broken.kirtu wrote:A chipped cup - the cup exists at the time of it's shards (shards not shown and probably thrown away).5heaps wrote:a cup can break but not end? thats very absurd, because then the cup would then still exist at the time of the shards.Matt J wrote:The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth.
so, no, a cup cannot break and yet still exist at the time of the shards. the cup first has to end in order for there to be shards following the breaking of the cup
now, this is more like it.kirtu wrote:A physical force acts on a material and is translated through the material. If the material has a certain rigidity then the material will begin to bend because the force can't translate through the material. The force will then tend to cause breaks where the material is weaker than in other places. In many materials these run in "veins" (just not literal veins). Materials made from earth and glass display this property. Materials made from wood are more resistant and tend to require more of a force.
when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?
Re: impermanence
If it was absent, it would avoid getting broken.5heaps wrote:when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?
Re: impermanence
right. on the other hand, if its present it means it aint brokenfuterko wrote:If it was absent, it would avoid getting broken.5heaps wrote:when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?
so...
Re: impermanence
but if you put all the pieces in a box, when anyone asked you what it was, you could tell them it's a broken cup, so it must still be present!5heaps wrote:right. on the other hand, if its present it means it aint brokenfuterko wrote:If it was absent, it would avoid getting broken.5heaps wrote:when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?
so...
Re: impermanence
I guess it depends on what we think of as "final moment" and "break" - For Dharmakirti a final moment of the cup refers to the moment of cup that is not the material cause for another moment of cup that could be counted as existent. For him momentary destruction is not externally caused and breaking here is really referring to the momentary causal sequence being blocked from continuing. So, I guess you could understand the breaker as enacting its force on this last moment of the cup to block the causal sequence from continuing. Some Madhyamikas might protest that this is very removed from the way we normally think about "cups breaking" and treat the question similar to how they treat production etc.5heaps wrote: is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,