PadmaVonSamba wrote:5heaps wrote:
what you dont seem to understand is that 'cup' is an unchanging category that is knowable only in dependence on having for example seen a valid basis. this valid basis is the changing thing that is subject to disintegration/impermanence. unchanging things are not. 'cup' is never produced (by causes and conditions) nor does it disintegrate. the cup that holds water however, and which lacks intrinsic existence, is produced and must at some point end. the question is how, and the answer has little to do with 'cup', it has to do with the machinations of the in the case external physical basis
What you don't seem to understand is that his statement doesn't make any sense.
Cup is not an unchanging category.
And the question is still
"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?"
Which, again you have not answered,
because using nonsensical reasoning,
no sensible answer is reachable.
if you dont know that the quality 'cup' is an unchanging negation, then you dont have a grasp of buddhist pramana and buddhist imputation theory (apoha).
what exactly in your view is the nonsensical reasoning? can you clearly state it?
i already stated the absurdities which are created when you answer either side of the question. the answer is not that the cup ends when 'cup' no longer applies. this is because 'cup' is not the cup. cups are in fact the things which fit into the category 'cup'. they all function as a basis for the imputation 'cup' and are subject to production and cessation/disintegration, and so the question of impermanence belongs to them, not the categories which are imputed onto them.
dont bother responding if youre just going to restate your original position again for the 10th time. actually address what is said above. apparently there is some part of that chain of logic which you can specifically counteract.
Adamantine wrote:A monkey may use what we might label and use as a cup, as a stool. Or as a hat. And the monkey may never label it any of these things.
if it really is validly known to be a hat to the monkey, then the question that the monkey can pose is about the impermanence of a hat.
if it is validly known to be a cup to me, then it is the impermanence of a cup.
however you cannot validly label half a cup a cup, because it is not a valid basis. similar to the artisian who calls shards a cup. what we are doing when we call half a cup a cup or what the artisan is doing when he calls shards on the floor a cup is labeling 'cup' on an internal visualization or memory which itself possesses the necessary characteristics to be labeled 'cup'. then in relation to this visualization/memory the artisan references the shards and names it a cup, but it is a cup in name only. it is not actually fit to fall into the category 'cup'. only things which look possess all the necessary characteristics fall into the category 'cup'. its similar to seeing a bumper and thinking 'car' but actually its not a car, its just the front bumper of a car. the imputation 'car' was an invalid perception. car here was just a sound-generality, not a meaning-generality, just as naming shards a cup is just a meaning-generality.
Parasamgate wrote:Given the parameters of the discussion I think it is fair to conclude that at no time does the cup end. The cup ended in the instantaneous and durationless non-moment represented by that asterisk I pointed out above. That asterisk is not a moment of any duration. So we have a situation where there is no moment where the cup ends and yet the cup no longer exists in the second moment as illustrated above.
oh i see, thats almost my position. a technicality is, do we put the asterisk AFTER the final moment of cup, or alongside the final moment of cup
that actually gets very close to the whole crux of the trick. is it a meaningful distinction to you to decide whether to put it after the moment or along with the moment?