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.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 613
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Matt J » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:25 am

Ok, this sentence is contradictory. On the one hand, you say that "nothing exists on its own side" and on the other hand, you say that analysis is "not even looking at this mere presence of conventional appearances and functionality." If mere presence of conventional appearances and functionality is not examined, then one cannot say things are empty from their own side--- truth is, under this paradigm, we don't know because we haven't looked. And we're back to separating the pot (mere presence and function) from some idea of inherent existence. And if we did look, I think we would find that mere presence and functionality is just as empty as everything else.


Kenneth Chan wrote:The result of the analysis on the ontological status of phenomena is that all things are indeed empty of inherent existence and that nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit. But this analysis does not negate conventional appearances and functionality, because the analysis is not even looking at this mere presence of conventional appearances and functionality.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/

User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 613
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum P

Postby Matt J » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:41 am

Malcolm made a handy truth chart, which is pretty much what Ju MIpham says:

absence of delusion = inexpressible ultimate truth
very subtle delusion = expressible ultimate truth
subtle delusion = correct relative truth
gross delusion = false relative truth

So natural philosophy won't ever reach the highest.

Wayfarer wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Siddhis also have a rational basis, "Where emptiness is possible, everything is possible..."


They are trans-rational, or supernatural. When Candrakirti passed his hand through a pillar that was a demonstration of same. The hagiographies of Buiddhist sages have many such accounts and I am not arguing against them (as any materialist would). What I'm calling out is that the perspective from which the 'ultimate analysis' is made, is not within the scope of natural philosophy. It is grounded in a higher perspective. I think the Sanskrit term is abhijna.
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:57 am

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:"Overcoming karmic appearances" is not achieved by negating what Lama Tsongkhapa calls the "mere existence" of conventional appearance and functionality, since negating this "mere existence" would also mean negating the fact that there is karma, cyclic existence, the Four Noble Truths, and so on.

There is a difference between outright negation and ascertaining the unreality of things. Still, in both cases karma, samsara, and so on are completely unreal, products of delusion, etc.

Malcolm, you are now saying basically the same thing that Lama Tsongkhapa has been saying all along, only with different terminology. Saying that there is “no outright negation” of karma, samsara, and so on, is essentially the same as saying that there is the “mere existence” of conventional appearances and functionality. Saying that they are “completely unreal, products of delusion, etc.” is essentially the same as saying that “nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit.” You have been merely arguing over semantics all this while, and that is what I have been trying to point out all this while.

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:Is the purpose of Madhyamaka to enable us to control the elements? Note that Milarepa could conjure up hailstones even before he began his spiritual journey with Marpa.

Milarepa's spiritual journey did not begin with Marpa. He studied with ten different Nyingma masters before he went to Marpa. He was already quite educated in Buddhadharma prior to meeting Marpa Lotsawa.
Kenneth Chan wrote:I know this. But the question still remains: Is the purpose of Madhyamaka to enable us to control the elements? It would appear that this is not the case, because Milarepa still had to undergo a difficult spiritual journey with Marpa. In fact, Milarepa's ability to control the elements actually hindered him here, because his actions in conjuring up hailstones ended up creating negative karma. Is that not so?

The point is that karmic appearance such as the elements are a limitation to be overcome, not a convention to be more and more strongly reinforced.

No one is “more and more strongly reinforcing” conventional appearance and functionality. I have repeatedly made this point that there is no “affirmation of existence” (as you put it) in Lama Tsongkhapa’s meaning. So please do not keep insisting on this misinterpretion. If "nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit," in terms of ontology, what else is left to be negated?

“Controlling the elements” is actually done within the framework of the “mere existence” of conventional appearance and functionality, where the existence of karma is not denied. Otherwise, how could Milarepa’s actions in conjuring up hailstones result in negative karma?

“Controlling the elements” is achieved through the power of the mind, and this can be particularly impressive if the mind is one that has attained a very high level of realization. But this is still done within the framework that karma functions.

This brings us back to the evidence, from quantum mechanics, that the mind does have a role to play in how particles manifest. Note that, prior to the act of observation by a conscious observer, the particle has not manifested and all we have is a quantum wave function that merely provides a probability distribution of possible ways the particle may manifest (if and only if an observation is made). It is only upon the actual act of observation that, in the words of Werner Heisenberg, the particle makes the transition from the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual.’ (This is described in detail in my paper at http://kenneth-chan.com/physics/direct- ... mechanics/)

Now, if the mind has a role in how particles manifest, is it not likely that a highly realized mind may be able to “control the elements” at least to some extent? I think we agree that this is possible, but this does not mean that there is the need for an “outright negation” of the “mere existence” of karma and conventional functionality.

It may interest some people to know that there is actually scientific evidence, utilizing quantum physics, that the mind can, in fact, influence how particles manifest. This is from the experimental work done in the Engineering Department of Princeton University, and is known as PEAR, which stands for “Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research” (see http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/). Let me quote this statement from their website:

“Beyond its revolutionary technological applications and scientific impact, the evidence of an active role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality holds profound implications for our view of ourselves, our relationships to others, and to the cosmos in which we exist. These, in turn, must inevitably impact our values, our priorities, our sense of responsibility, and our style of life. Our ability to acquire, or to generate tangible, measurable information independent of distance or time challenges the foundation of any reductionist brain-based model of consciousness that may be invoked.”

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:12 am

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:"Overcoming karmic appearances" is not achieved by negating what Lama Tsongkhapa calls the "mere existence" of conventional appearance and functionality, since negating this "mere existence" would also mean negating the fact that there is karma, cyclic existence, the Four Noble Truths, and so on.

There is a difference between outright negation and ascertaining the unreality of things. Still, in both cases karma, samsara, and so on are completely unreal, products of delusion, etc.

Malcolm, you are now saying basically the same thing that Lama Tsongkhapa has been saying all along, only with different terminology. Saying that there is “no outright negation” of karma, samsara, and so on, is essentially the same as saying that there is the “mere existence” of conventional appearances and functionality.


Not at all. In classical Madhamaka appearances are investigated directly, but not in Tsongkhapa's revisionist approach.


Saying that they are “completely unreal, products of delusion, etc.” is essentially the same as saying that “nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit.” You have been merely arguing over semantics all this while, and that is what I have been trying to point out all this while.


Again, not at all.


No one is “more and more strongly reinforcing” conventional appearance and functionality. I have repeatedly made this point that there is no “affirmation of existence” (as you put it) in Lama Tsongkhapa’s meaning. So please do not keep insisting on this misinterpretion. If "nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit," in terms of ontology, what else is left to be negated?


The assertion that things exist dependently, or your "mere existence."
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:26 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:No one is “more and more strongly reinforcing” conventional appearance and functionality. I have repeatedly made this point that there is no “affirmation of existence” (as you put it) in Lama Tsongkhapa’s meaning. So please do not keep insisting on this misinterpretion. If "nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit," in terms of ontology, what else is left to be negated?

The assertion that things exist dependently, or your "mere existence."

All this disagreement is the result of your misunderstanding the terminology as it is used by Lama Tsongkhapa. I suggest you read Chapter 17 of the Lam Rim Chen Mo, where Lama Tsongkhapa goes to great lengths to explain the meaning and reason for the terminology he uses. Here is an example of this explanation of his terminology, where Lama Tsongkhapa begins by citing the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra [in Twenty-five Thousand Lines]:

““Venerable Subhuti, is it that there is no attainment and no clear knowledge?”

Subhuti answered, “Venerable Sariputra, there is attainment and there is also clear knowledge, but not in a dualistic sense. Venerable Sariputra, attainment and clear knowledge exist as worldly conventions. Also stream-enterers, once-returners, never-returners, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas exist as worldly conventions. Ultimately, however, there is no attainment and there is no clear knowledge.””


After quoting a number of other passages from Buddhist texts, Lama Tsongkhapa then states this:

“Thus, such texts often make statements in which they attach “ultimately,” “truly,” or “in reality” to the negation; even when they do not add those, they very frequently add a qualification that something “does not exist essentially,” or “does not exist intrinsically,” or “does not exist by way of its intrinsic character.””

It should be clear, then, that the term “intrinsic existence” simply means “ultimate existence.” The qualifier “intrinsic” is not a modification of the word “existence” but merely a clarification of its meaning. We need to understand Lama Tsongkhapa’s terminology in order to understand his meaning correctly.

I will now attempt to explain Lama Tsongkhapa’s meaning with regards to your suggestion that there is “insufficient negation of existence” (using Lama Tsongkhapa’s terminology). This essentially means trying to explain the basic meaning of Chapter 16 of the Lam Rim Chen Mo, which is entitled “Not Negating Enough.”

It is important to note that Lama Tsongkhapa begins the chapter by saying that merely negating an existence, that is permanent and not dependent on causes and conditions, is not negating enough, since this level of understanding will not free us from samara. What we need to negate is the existence that is posited by our innate ignorance. In Lama Tsongkhapa’s words:

“… when making philosophical determinations, make your principal task to determine that an object as conceived by innate ignorance does not exist.”

Lama Tsongkhapa then goes on to elaborate on “nature,” and it is the issue of the existence of this “nature” that we really have to address. This is now a very subtle issue, and it is testament to the wonderful genius and advanced realization of Lama Tsongkhapa that he is able to rationally argue his case through the use of words. It is difficult enough to express this meaning in words, so we need to follow closely by accepting the terminology, as intended by Lama Tsongkhapa; otherwise we will have little hope of understanding his meaning.

Lama Tsongkhapa states:

“The Buddha posits a “nature,” saying, “This is the reality of phenomena.” It is not fabricated and does not depend on something else. Candrakirti’s Explanation of the “Middle Way” Commentary establishes that it exists, citing a sutra source:

Is there a nature that has such qualifications as the master Nagarjuna claims? Yes, it is the “reality” of which the Bhagavan spoke extensively, saying “Whether tathagatas appear or not, the reality of phenomena remains.” What is this “reality”? It is the nature of things such as these eyes. And, what is their nature? It is that in them which is neither fabricated nor dependent upon something else; it is their identity as known by knowledge free from the impairment of ignorance. Does it exist or not? If it did not exist, for what purpose would bodhisattvas cultivate the path of the perfections? Why would bodhisattvas undergo hundreds of hardships in order to know reality?”


[It is important to note here what is meant by “fabricated” and by “dependent upon something else.” In a later passage, Lama Tsongkhapa states: ““Fabricated” means “produced” in the sense of a new occurrence of something that did not exist before; “to depend upon something else” means to depend on causes and conditions.”]

Now we have to take note of the terminology being used very carefully (i.e. “intrinsic nature” as opposed to just “nature”), because Lama Tsongkhapa then states:

Even phenomena that are not internal mental constructs lack even a particle of essential or intrinsic nature. … Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all. For Candrakirti’s Clear Words says:

“The “final nature” is the unfabricated fundamental entity which is ineluctably present in fire in the past, present, and future; it is not the later occurrence of something that was not there before; it does not depend on causes and conditions like the heat of water, or here and there, or long and short. Does fire have such a nature? It neither essentially has it nor essentially lacks it. Nevertheless, to avoid frightening listeners, I reify it and say, “It exists conventionally.””

Thus Candrakirti refutes the view that this nature exists essentially; he says it exists conventionally.”


What exactly does this mean? To understand this, we have to keep in mind that this “nature” is the “nature of some phenomenon,” so it is an attribute attached to a substratum—for example, form. Lama Tsongkhapa’s brilliant explanation, of what it means to say that this nature only exists conventionally, can be found in this passage, although, here, he is applying the reasoning to the nature that is the “absence of intrinsic nature”:

“… when you as an ordinary being determine that phenomena lack even a particle of essential or intrinsic nature, you find that emptiness—emptiness of intrinsic nature—is an attribute of the phenomena, such as form, that serves as its substrata. Thus, it is not contradictory for both substrata and attribute to be objects of a single mind. Since you have not stopped dualistic appearance, that emptiness is a nominal rather than actual ultimate truth.

By accustoming yourself to that view which knows the absence of intrinsic nature, you will know it by perceiving it. For such a consciousness, all mistaken appearances stop. Mistaken appearance here means the appearance of intrinsic existence where there is no intrinsic existence. Therefore, since the consciousness directly perceiving that reality does not perceive substrata such as forms, neither that reality nor its substrata exist from the perspective of that mind. So emptiness and forms, etc. must be posited as reality and substrata from the perspective of some other mind, a conventional mind.”


This is why it is a conventional truth. It is what is perceived by a conventional mind. A mind that perceives emptiness directly does not perceive substrata such as form; so, for such a mind, there is no intrinsically existing label “absence of intrinsic existence” to apply to the substrata.

To begin with, the substrata is not even there for the label “absence of intrinsic existence” to attach to. So the label “absence of intrinsic existence” is merely a label. It does not inherently exist because its very existence depends on the conventional mind that imputes the label. This means that it exists in mere name only. If that is the case, in terms of ontology, what else is there to negate?

This same kind of analysis can be applied to the “assertion that things exist dependently” that you say still need to be negated. This is merely a label imputed by the conventional mind. It does not ultimately exist. It exists in mere name only, and arises in dependence upon the conventional mind that imputes it. It is completely empty of any existence from its own side. In terms of ontology, there is actually nothing left to negate.

So Candrakirti’s Explanation of the “Middle Way” Commentary says:

“Therefore, the ultimate is neither a thing nor a non-thing; by nature, it is simply peace.”

And Lama Tsongkhapa adds this explanation:

“Here, “thing” and “non-thing” refer to essential existence and utter nonexistence.”

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:44 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:All this disagreement is the result of your misunderstanding the terminology as it is used by Lama Tsongkhapa.


No. All this disagreement is based on the fact that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from the meaning intended by Nagārjuna, etc.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:21 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:All this disagreement is the result of your misunderstanding the terminology as it is used by Lama Tsongkhapa.


No. All this disagreement is based on the fact that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from the meaning intended by Nagārjuna, etc.

In order to make any such claim, you have to first demonstrate that you actually understand Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:32 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:All this disagreement is the result of your misunderstanding the terminology as it is used by Lama Tsongkhapa.


No. All this disagreement is based on the fact that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from the meaning intended by Nagārjuna, etc.

In order to make any such claim, you have to first demonstrate that you actually understand Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning.


All that is necessary is to point out that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from Nāgārjuna, for by example, by arguing that since the second pair in the fourfold negation are double negatives, they are redundant. Or that appearances are not to be directly analyzed, only their nature is to be analyzed, and so on.

Gorampa made a list of over 150 points where Tsongkhapa seriously departs from the meaning set forth by Nāgārjuna. They have never been adequately responded to by the Gelugpa school.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:42 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
No. All this disagreement is based on the fact that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from the meaning intended by Nagārjuna, etc.

In order to make any such claim, you have to first demonstrate that you actually understand Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning.


All that is necessary is to point out that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from Nāgārjuna, for by example, by arguing that since the second pair in the fourfold negation are double negatives, they are redundant. Or that appearances are not to be directly analyzed, only their nature is to be analyzed, and so on.

Gorampa made a list of over 150 points where Tsongkhapa seriously departs from the meaning set forth by Nāgārjuna. They have never been adequately responded to by the Gelugpa school.


The problem is that Gorampa doesn't actually understand Nagarjuna's intention unmistakenly. Tsongkhapa's explanation is in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention so it's not surprising that Gorampa disagrees with it.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:51 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:In order to make any such claim, you have to first demonstrate that you actually understand Lama Tsongkhapa's meaning.


All that is necessary is to point out that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from Nāgārjuna, for by example, by arguing that since the second pair in the fourfold negation are double negatives, they are redundant. Or that appearances are not to be directly analyzed, only their nature is to be analyzed, and so on.

Gorampa made a list of over 150 points where Tsongkhapa seriously departs from the meaning set forth by Nāgārjuna. They have never been adequately responded to by the Gelugpa school.


The problem is that Gorampa doesn't actually understand Nagarjuna's intention unmistakenly. Tsongkhapa's explanation is in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention so it's not surprising that Gorampa disagrees with it.


I see, and you have actually read Gorampa to ascertain this? Talk about blind faith.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

User avatar
Tsongkhapafan
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:36 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Tsongkhapafan » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:08 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
All that is necessary is to point out that Tsongkhapa departs in important ways from Nāgārjuna, for by example, by arguing that since the second pair in the fourfold negation are double negatives, they are redundant. Or that appearances are not to be directly analyzed, only their nature is to be analyzed, and so on.

Gorampa made a list of over 150 points where Tsongkhapa seriously departs from the meaning set forth by Nāgārjuna. They have never been adequately responded to by the Gelugpa school.


The problem is that Gorampa doesn't actually understand Nagarjuna's intention unmistakenly. Tsongkhapa's explanation is in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention so it's not surprising that Gorampa disagrees with it.


I see, and you have actually read Gorampa to ascertain this? Talk about blind faith.


I have read 'The Two Truths Debate' which compares and contrasts Gorampa and Tsongkhapa.

Please list these points and we can address them, but it's all a bit pointless. I still think we should just follow the views of our Spiritual Guides.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:35 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
The problem is that Gorampa doesn't actually understand Nagarjuna's intention unmistakenly. Tsongkhapa's explanation is in accordance with Nagarjuna's intention so it's not surprising that Gorampa disagrees with it.


I see, and you have actually read Gorampa to ascertain this? Talk about blind faith.


I have read 'The Two Truths Debate' which compares and contrasts Gorampa and Tsongkhapa.

Please list these points and we can address them, but it's all a bit pointless. I still think we should just follow the views of our Spiritual Guides.



Thakchoe's book is hardly an objective appraisal of Gorampa's views.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:30 pm

Matt J wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:The result of the analysis on the ontological status of phenomena is that all things are indeed empty of inherent existence and that nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit. But this analysis does not negate conventional appearances and functionality, because the analysis is not even looking at this mere presence of conventional appearances and functionality.

Ok, this sentence is contradictory. On the one hand, you say that "nothing exists on its own side" and on the other hand, you say that analysis is "not even looking at this mere presence of conventional appearances and functionality." If mere presence of conventional appearances and functionality is not examined, then one cannot say things are empty from their own side--- truth is, under this paradigm, we don't know because we haven't looked. And we're back to separating the pot (mere presence and function) from some idea of inherent existence. And if we did look, I think we would find that mere presence and functionality is just as empty as everything else.

Actually there is no contradiction. We need to understand the terminology correctly. The "mere existence" of conventional appearances and functionality refers to how something exists conventionally. It is not inherent existence, intrinsic existence, true existence or existing from its own side. It is what remains after we have already examined phenomena with the analysis of whether or not they intrinsically exist. Here is how Lama Tsongkhapa describes what "mere existence" means:

“We hold that something exist conventionally (1) if it is known to a conventional consciousness; (2) if no other conventional valid cognition contradicts its being as it is thus known; and (3) if reason that accurately analyses reality—that is, analyses whether something intrinsically exists—does not contradict it.”

As I mentioned earlier, this last condition needs some clarification. Lama Tsongkhapa points out that rational analysis concerning whether or not something intrinsically exists (or exists from its own side) will reveal that all things are indeed empty of intrinsic existence. However, such an analysis cannot refute conventional appearances and functionality. This is because the analysis was not even looking at this conventional appearances and functionality in the first place.

Now if we then proceed to examine this attribute called "conventional appearances and functionality," we will also find that it is empty of inherent existence, as you say. This is because it is only what is perceived by the conventional mind. A mind that directly perceives emptiness does not have the mistaken view of seeing phenomena as intrinsically existing, and so there is no substrata on which to attach this sense of the "mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality." It is merely a label that is imputed by the conventional consciousness. So it exists in mere name only, and is therefore empty of inherent existence. It does not exist from its own side.

But it is important not to claim that this "mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality" is totally nonexistent. Otherwise, we will also be negating karma, cyclic existence, the Four Noble Truths, and so on.

What I would like to point out here, in view of all these disputes over the finer nuances of Madhyamaka, is that we actually cannot intellectualise our way to enlightenment. What we need to do, instead, is to combine this understanding of emptiness with bodhicitta, and to transform our mind, and our very being, to conform with this combination of wisdom and compassion.

This means that we have to take every next step that we know we need to take to transform our very being into a better person. And this means that not everyone will take exactly the same route, since we will not necessarily all follow the exact same steps in exactly the same sequence. We each have to take the route that is suitable for us, and this is determined by the each next step that we do know that we have to take at different stages of our spiritual journey.

The finer nuances of Madhyamaka would probably not immediately matter to us as far as taking the next step on this spiritual path is concerned (of course, this depends on what level we are already at). All we need is sufficient understanding of emptiness to proceed with the next step that we need to take. The spiritual path is a path of verification, and as we progress, we will come to realise, through direct personal experience, more and more of the truth.

For me personally, I find the Madhyamika philosophy as interpreted by Lama Tsongkhapa to be extremely beneficial because he is able to explain it on a very rigorous intellectual basis. This suits me perfectly because I am a very intellectually inclined person. But that's me. Someone else may find another approach to be more appropriate. If we take every next step that we know we need to take to become a better person, we will each be guided to the path the suits us best.

For what it's worth, I also find that the formulation of quantum mechanics fits extremely well with the Madhyamika philosophy of Candrakirti, Shantideva, and Lama Tsongkhapa. However, I am really not sure whether this can be useful, in any way, in resolving some of the finer nuances of Madhyamaka.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:48 am

Kenneth Chan wrote: It is what remains after we have already examined phenomena with the analysis of whether or not they intrinsically exist.


And this is precisely the problem with the view you gave adopted. Your analysis is incomplete and leaves you a realist with respect the relative, and an advocate of nonexistence with respect to the ultimate.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:25 am

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: It is what remains after we have already examined phenomena with the analysis of whether or not they intrinsically exist.

And this is precisely the problem with the view you gave adopted. Your analysis is incomplete and leaves you a realist with respect the relative, and an advocate of nonexistence with respect to the ultimate.

Malcolm, are you arguing over semantics yet again? This is getting tiresome. How is this being a "realist" when all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (which means empty of true existence), and when nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit? You also ignored my explanation that this nature of reality that we label "mere existence" is also empty of inherent existence or true existence, because it exists in name only, since it is a label imputed by the conventional mind.

And since I specifically also said that it is important not to claim that this "mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality" is totally nonexistent, how does that make me an "advocate of nonexistence"? Please stop arguing over mere semantics. It is pointless.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:41 am

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote: It is what remains after we have already examined phenomena with the analysis of whether or not they intrinsically exist.

And this is precisely the problem with the view you gave adopted. Your analysis is incomplete and leaves you a realist with respect the relative, and an advocate of nonexistence with respect to the ultimate.

Malcolm, are you arguing over semantics yet again? This is getting tiresome. How is this being a "realist" when all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (which means empty of true existence), and when nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit? You also ignored my explanation that this nature of reality that we label "mere existence" is also empty of inherent existence or true existence, because it exists in name only, since it is a label imputed by the conventional mind.

And since I specifically also said that it is important not to claim that this "mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality" is totally nonexistent, how does that make me an "advocate of nonexistence"? Please stop arguing over mere semantics. It is pointless.


You are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence. Why? Because you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. This is inescapable conclusion of assertign the ultimate is only the nonexistence of inherent existence.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:05 am

Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:And this is precisely the problem with the view you gave adopted. Your analysis is incomplete and leaves you a realist with respect the relative, and an advocate of nonexistence with respect to the ultimate.

Malcolm, are you arguing over semantics yet again? This is getting tiresome. How is this being a "realist" when all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (which means empty of true existence), and when nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit? You also ignored my explanation that this nature of reality that we label "mere existence" is also empty of inherent existence or true existence, because it exists in name only, since it is a label imputed by the conventional mind.

And since I specifically also said that it is important not to claim that this "mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality" is totally nonexistent, how does that make me an "advocate of nonexistence"? Please stop arguing over mere semantics. It is pointless.

You are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence. Why? Because you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. This is inescapable conclusion of assertign the ultimate is only the nonexistence of inherent existence.

Everything you say here is incorrect. I am not "an advocate of ultimate nonexistence." I do not "assert the ultimate is a nonexistence." Neither do I say that "the ultimate is only the nonexistence of inherent existence."

All things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen. This does not mean that they are nonexistent. There is the mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality.

Let's not argue over semantics again.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:16 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Kenneth Chan wrote:Malcolm, are you arguing over semantics yet again? This is getting tiresome. How is this being a "realist" when all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (which means empty of true existence), and when nothing exists from its own side, not even a tiny bit? You also ignored my explanation that this nature of reality that we label "mere existence" is also empty of inherent existence or true existence, because it exists in name only, since it is a label imputed by the conventional mind.

And since I specifically also said that it is important not to claim that this "mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality" is totally nonexistent, how does that make me an "advocate of nonexistence"? Please stop arguing over mere semantics. It is pointless.

You are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence. Why? Because you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. This is inescapable conclusion of assertign the ultimate is only the nonexistence of inherent existence.

Everything you say here is incorrect. I am not "an advocate of ultimate nonexistence." I do not "assert the ultimate is a nonexistence." Neither do I say that "the ultimate is only the nonexistence of inherent existence."

All things are empty of inherent existence because they are dependently arisen. This does not mean that they are nonexistent. There is the mere existence of conventional appearances and functionality.

Let's not argue over semantics again.


You do assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. All entities have two natures, one relative, one ultimate. You assert the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone. This means you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. Ergo, you are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu

Kenneth Chan
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:35 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Kenneth Chan » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:44 pm

Malcolm wrote:You do assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. All entities have two natures, one relative, one ultimate. You assert the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone. This means you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. Ergo, you are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence.

Malcolm, stop playing semantic games. And stop putting words in my mouth. I did not assert "the ultimate is a nonexistence." I did not assert "the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone." And I did not assert "the ultimate is a nonexistence." I am not even sure, actually, what you mean with your terminology, since you do not accept the terminology as used by Lama Tsongkhapa. So, until you actually explain what you mean, all this is just a play with words.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 23072
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: How Madhyamika Philosophy Solves the Mystery of Quantum Physics

Postby Malcolm » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:48 pm

Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:You do assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. All entities have two natures, one relative, one ultimate. You assert the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone. This means you assert the ultimate is a nonexistence. Ergo, you are an advocate of ultimate nonexistence.

Malcolm, stop playing semantic games. And stop putting words in my mouth. I did not assert "the ultimate is a nonexistence." I did not assert "the ultimate nature of all entities is the absence of inherent existence alone." And I did not assert "the ultimate is a nonexistence." I am not even sure, actually, what you mean with your terminology, since you do not accept the terminology as used by Lama Tsongkhapa. So, until you actually explain what you mean, all this is just a play with words.



I did explain it to you.

All entities have two natures, one ultimate, one relative. The ultimate nature of all entities is emptiness.

However, there is some disagreement about what emptiness means.

You assert that emptiness means the absence of inherent existence. If you define emptiness solely as the absence of inherent existence, you are defining emptiness as a nonexistence. The nonexistence of what? The nonexistence of inherent existence. This means you are defining ultimate emptiness as a nonexistence.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


"Belief is useless."

-- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu


Return to “Academic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kenneth Chan and 12 guests