Rabbit's Horns

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8799
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by DGA » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:28 am

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:11 pm
DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:18 am
it's incoherent and it doesn't mean a damned thing
2+2=4.

There's nothing incoherent about a rabbit having horns.
1. the "it" I was referring to was the totality of incoherent and meaningless experiences we refer to as samsara.

2. if your claim is correct, then you should be able to show me a rabbit with horns. Whaddya got?

3. arithmetic is a socially useful fiction

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:55 am

Image

Socially useful fiction. Ok ...

Your turn, show me 2+2=5.

PS: Just because 2+2=4 is not like “all grey elephants are elephants” or “all swans are white” doesn’t mean it is not necessary and universal.

PPS: If samsara were incoherent and meaningless why would we want to get out of it?
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

jake
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by jake » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:35 am

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:55 am
Image

Socially useful fiction. Ok ...

Your turn, show me 2+2=5.

PS: Just because 2+2=4 is not like “all grey elephants are elephants” or “all swans are white” doesn’t mean it is not necessary and universal.

PPS: If samsara were incoherent and meaningless why would we want to get out of it?
Not to be a pain in the ass, but that is a picture of a rabbit with antlers, not horns. Good example of incoherence though... (not consistent with the title).
“The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone."

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:39 am

jake wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:35 am
Not to be a pain in the ass, but that is a picture of a rabbit with antlers, not horns. Good example of incoherence though... (not consistent with the title).
I was hoping no one would notice. How many years do you think I waited to shoot that photograph? I finally track down the f-er in Tasmania and he doesn’t even have horns, only antlers. Just pretend it’s horns, otherwise it’s literally years of my life down the drain.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
cloudburst
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by cloudburst » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:07 am

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:32 pm
cloudburst wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:31 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:30 am


They have the same existence as anything which cannot be/is not produced. They simply don't. The example for how things exist is space. The example for how space exists is hair on a tortoise— it just doesn't grow.
I guess its you vs Chandrakiriti then
It isn't actually. It's between me and how you (mis)understand Chandrakirti.
not the strongest argument I've seen.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 8799
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by DGA » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 pm

Is a digital image of a rabbit with antlers the same as a rabbit with horns?

If so, then... how on earth is that anything but incoherent?
PuerAzaelis wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:55 am

Socially useful fiction. Ok ...

Your turn, show me 2+2=5.

PS: Just because 2+2=4 is not like “all grey elephants are elephants” or “all swans are white” doesn’t mean it is not necessary and universal.
Are you admitting that two elephants plus two swans does not necessarily or universally make four gorillas?

Mathematics is descriptive. There is always and inevitably a gap between the name for something, its descriptor, and the content of that thing.

Generally, when beings who are not aryas make claims of universal validity, that's a good time to become skeptical. Leibnitz was clever but he wasn't a Buddha.

I could go on but I'm lazy and it's easier to leave this sort of discussion to the specialists, with apologies for their constipated prose:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44084674?se ... b_contents

PPS: If samsara were incoherent and meaningless why would we want to get out of it?
The incoherence and meaninglessness of samsara are part of the problem with samsara. You have the question backward. If samsara were coherent and meaningful, then what's the problem with it?

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:56 pm

DGA wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 pm
Is a digital image of a rabbit with antlers the same as a rabbit with horns?

If so, then... how on earth is that anything but incoherent?
The point is I shot that photograph myself. I also happen to know with certainty that there is a hippopotamus living in your attic. The only way to disprove those proposition is to falsify them. There is no need to do that with 2+2=5, since there will never be a time where we suddenly discover an instance of 2+2=5, like we can discover black swans.
DGA wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 pm
Are you admitting that two elephants plus two swans does not necessarily or universally make four gorillas?

Mathematics is descriptive. There is always and inevitably a gap between the name for something, its descriptor, and the content of that thing.
Of course. But certain descriptors are universal and necessary because they are preconditions for all experience.
DGA wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 pm
Generally, when beings who are not aryas make claims of universal validity, that's a good time to become skeptical. Leibnitz was clever but he wasn't a Buddha.
Neither was buddha someone who said that everything was relative or even normative. If he had done that, enlightenment would be very easy.
DGA wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 pm
If samsara were coherent and meaningful, then what's the problem with it?
When I stick a fork in my hand, my suffering is meaningful.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25512
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:21 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:48 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:30 am
They have the same existence as anything which cannot be/is not produced. They simply don't.
?

7.

If Nirvana is not a [positive] existent, how will nirvana be an "absence"?
Where there is no existent, there is no "absence".

8.

And if nirvana is an "absence" how can nirvana be non-dependent?
There is no absence that exists without dependence.

MMK, 25 (Siderits, scare quotes added by me)
Doesn't apply.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by aflatun » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:30 pm

aflatun wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:47 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:59 pm
The characteristic of cessation is absence of arising.
Absence of arising of what?
Apologies Malcolm, I wasn't trying to be cute here, it was a sincere question.

When you often say things like "cessation is absence of arising" do you mean ALL arising? As in, cessation is the non arising of appearances, what is dependently originated, etc?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25512
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:49 pm

aflatun wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:30 pm
aflatun wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:47 am
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:59 pm
The characteristic of cessation is absence of arising.
Absence of arising of what?
Apologies Malcolm, I wasn't trying to be cute here, it was a sincere question.

When you often say things like "cessation is absence of arising" do you mean ALL arising? As in, cessation is the non arising of appearances, what is dependently originated, etc?
There are two kinds of cessation: analytical and non-analytical. The latter is simply the absence of causes for a series to arise. Example, a burnt seed. The former is the absence of causes due to analysis, for example, the absence of afflictions in an arhat. In absence of afflictions, one ceases taking rebirth. In both of these cases there is no ceased existent through which a nonexistent can be known.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by aflatun » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:02 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:49 pm
aflatun wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:30 pm
aflatun wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:47 am


Absence of arising of what?
Apologies Malcolm, I wasn't trying to be cute here, it was a sincere question.

When you often say things like "cessation is absence of arising" do you mean ALL arising? As in, cessation is the non arising of appearances, what is dependently originated, etc?
There are two kinds of cessation: analytical and non-analytical. The latter is simply the absence of causes for a series to arise. Example, a burnt seed. The former is the absence of causes due to analysis, for example, the absence of afflictions in an arhat. In absence of afflictions, one ceases taking rebirth. In both of these cases there is no ceased existent through which a nonexistent can be known.
Thank you sir. (I may come back to this later, but I appreciate it)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4635
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by conebeckham » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:58 pm

cloudburst wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:31 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:30 am
cloudburst wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:01 am


To be less sloppy, horns of rabbits can NOT actually be known by mind, as such a thing never existed. You could perhaps apprehend a generic image of Rabbit horns.

The point is that cessations and space, of course, do exist.
They have the same existence as anything which cannot be/is not produced. They simply don't. The example for how things exist is space. The example for how space exists is hair on a tortoise— it just doesn't grow.
I guess its you vs Chandrakiriti then
It's actually your misinterpretation of Chandrakirti, but this is the same old conversation, isn't it?

Your position is akin to the Svatantrika position that things exist not truly, but by virtue of their characteristics. Svatantrikas say that things like the process of production exist on the conventional level and that to deny this is to posit a complete nonexistence.

Chandrakirti answers that Madhyamaka analysis counters a truly existent "process of production," (and thus, a cesssation, etc., on the absolute level), and that which cannot be existent on the absolute level is impossible to find on the conventional level. We can say that there is the appearance of the process of production, etc., but that such appearance has no ontological status. It appears to ordinary beings and is only on the level of no analysis that such an existence could be assumed.

Mipham says:
"There is no such thing as ordinary, conventional, specifically characterized production; and since ordinary beings never themselves apprehend any other kind of production, there is no need of absolutist reasoning to refute it. This notion that the specifically characterized production of conventional phenomena exists as it appears is none other than the apprehension of, and clinging to, the phenomenal self. On the ultimate level, however, such a thing cannot be found. When one uses absolutist reasoning to investigate production, no such production is found from the point of view of either of the two truths. It is inadmissible to assert that conventional, specifically characterized production is not disproved."
--"Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Ju Mipham," p. 207.
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."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:21 pm
Doesn't apply.
it's the exact portion of chapter 25 that discusses nonexistence of Nirvana which is exactly what we're talking about.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25512
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:38 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:36 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:21 pm
Doesn't apply.
it's the exact portion of chapter 25 that discusses nonexistence of Nirvana which is exactly what we're talking about.
It does not apply as a rebuttal to my point. You cited it without giving a context for why you were citing it.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:43 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:38 pm
It does not apply as a rebuttal to my point. You cited it without giving a context for why you were citing it.
This was the context:
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:30 am
cloudburst wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:01 am
... The point is that cessations and space, of course, do exist.
They have the same existence as anything which cannot be/is not produced. They simply don't.
Nagarjuna says in MMK 25:7-8:

If Nirvana is not a [positive] existent, how will nirvana be an "absence"?
Where there is no existent, there is no "absence".
And if nirvana is an "absence" how can nirvana be non-dependent?
There is no absence that exists without dependence.


So it's not possible to make a statement that cessation "simply doesn't exist".
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25512
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:57 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:43 pm

Nagarjuna says in MMK 25:7-8:

If Nirvana is not a [positive] existent, how will nirvana be an "absence"?
Where there is no existent, there is no "absence".
And if nirvana is an "absence" how can nirvana be non-dependent?
There is no absence that exists without dependence.


So it's not possible to make a statement that cessation "simply doesn't exist".

Nirvana is unconditioned; existents and nonexistents are conditioned;
how can there be either existents or nonexistents in nirvana?


Cessations simply don't exist. How could they? They have no means of existence at all.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:02 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:57 pm
Cessations simply don't exist.
In which case, following the same statement you cite:
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:57 pm
... nonexistents are conditioned
... a cessation, since it "simply doesn't exist", is conditioned.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25512
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:06 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:02 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:57 pm
Cessations simply don't exist.
In which case, following the same statement you cite:
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:57 pm
... nonexistents are conditioned
... a cessation, since it "simply doesn't exist", is conditioned.
No, this does not follow since existents are productions, whereas cessations are not.

You are confusing bhava and abhava with asti and nasti. When one says that a cessation does not exist (nasti), one is not making the claim they are nonexistents (abhava). Nonexistents are defined from existents. There is no existent by which a nonexistent cessation might be defined since cessations are not produced to begin with, being unconditioned. Cessations have no being at all, of any kind, including nonbeing. Therefore, they do not exist.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4635
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by conebeckham » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:18 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:43 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:38 pm
It does not apply as a rebuttal to my point. You cited it without giving a context for why you were citing it.
This was the context:
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:30 am
cloudburst wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:01 am
... The point is that cessations and space, of course, do exist.
They have the same existence as anything which cannot be/is not produced. They simply don't.
Nagarjuna says in MMK 25:7-8:

If Nirvana is not a [positive] existent, how will nirvana be an "absence"?
Where there is no existent, there is no "absence".
And if nirvana is an "absence" how can nirvana be non-dependent?
There is no absence that exists without dependence.


So it's not possible to make a statement that cessation "simply doesn't exist".
Read MMK 25:21-24, Nagarjuna clearly answers this question.
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."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:23 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:06 pm
You are confusing bhava and abhava with asti and nasti.
In that case Nagarjuna may also be confused.

MMK 25: 7-8

bhavo yadi na nirvanam abhavah kim bhavisyati
nirvanam yatra bhavo na nabhavas tatra vidyate

If nirvana is not a positive existent how will nirvana be an absence?
When there is no existent, there is no absence.

yady abhavas ca nirvanam anupadaya tat katham
nirvanam na hy abhavo 'sti yo nupadaya vidyate

And if nirvana is an absence, how can nirvana be nondependent?
There is no absence that exists without dependence.


Of course it's not always easy to decide when Nagarjuna is making an opponent's argument or his own - which appears to be why Siderits used "absence" here instead of "nonexistence".

Siderits seems to take cone's view that Nagarjuna's real argument comes later, in fact, he says, in verses 15-16.

This is an interpretation, however. I don't recall if other translators read it this way.

PS: For example, the Dharmachakra translation appears to have has a different interpretation.
Last edited by PuerAzaelis on Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart, PemaSherab, philji, Terma, yan kong and 53 guests