5heaps wrote: the discussion is about the impermanence of the cup not the impermanence of the valid but incorrect appearance of 'cup'.
I assume that by "valid but incorrect"
you mean that the appearance of a cup occurs, that's an undeniable event.
but that this appearance itself is somewhat illusory, thus incorrect.
Correct me if my understanding of your statement is wrong.
By "appearance", do you mean
.... all of its physical characteristics,
meaning that "cup" is not a collection of shards put a single, concave object?
If not, then what does 'appearance" mean?
I ask this because, if by 'appearance' you are not
referring to its physical characteristics,
then what else is there, beyond its physical characteristics
are you referring to as the cup?
Because you assert that
of the physical characteristic of it (being a single object)
is valid, but incorrect.
Please tell me, when you have the time,
what do you regard as the difference between
and appearance of cup
Please answer, when you have the time,
What I asked you before: What makes it a cup?
And if you have time, based on that answer,
and in terms of your own understanding of emptiness,
please answer this:
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?