Rabbit's Horns

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Bristollad
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:58 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:43 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:12 am


But cessations are existent phenomena...
No, they are not. They do not arise from causes and conditions. Why? Because they do not arise.

To be existent is to be conditioned. Neither space nor the two cessations are conditioned.
We disagree. Not news really - I'm a student of Geluk teachers and you think Tsongkhapa got it all wrong, and I know you can run rings around me debating the points, so I'll not bother :smile:

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25456
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:58 pm
We disagree.

It is not a question of agreement or disagreement, it is a question of basic definitions which come from Abhidharma.

The question of whether space and cessations were existents was settled a thousand years before Tsongkhapa.

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting niner niner niner in an attempt to drown out counterfactual statements just makes you look like a kid.
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.

Bristollad
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Bristollad » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:58 pm
We disagree.

It is not a question of agreement or disagreement, it is a question of basic definitions which come from Abhidharma.

The question of whether space and cessations were existents was settled a thousand years before Tsongkhapa.

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting niner niner niner in an attempt to drown out counterfactual statements just makes you look like a kid.
Or someone who prefers to listen to his own teachers from his own tradition rather than someone on a blog who is known to disagree strongly with that tradition :shrug:

Whatever, the floor is yours. :meditate:

Norwegian
Posts: 1041
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Norwegian » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:23 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:19 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:58 pm
We disagree.

It is not a question of agreement or disagreement, it is a question of basic definitions which come from Abhidharma.

The question of whether space and cessations were existents was settled a thousand years before Tsongkhapa.

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting niner niner niner in an attempt to drown out counterfactual statements just makes you look like a kid.
Or someone who prefers to listen to his own teachers from his own tradition rather than someone on a blog who is known to disagree strongly with that tradition :shrug:

Whatever, the floor is yours. :meditate:
Can you cite the part of the MMK which proves your assertion that cessations are existent phenomena? Citing Chandrakirti or Buddhapalita (their commentaries) for example, is also fine.
Thanks.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25456
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:56 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:19 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:58 pm
We disagree.

It is not a question of agreement or disagreement, it is a question of basic definitions which come from Abhidharma.

The question of whether space and cessations were existents was settled a thousand years before Tsongkhapa.

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting niner niner niner in an attempt to drown out counterfactual statements just makes you look like a kid.
Or someone who prefers to listen to his own teachers from his own tradition rather than someone on a blog who is known to disagree strongly with that tradition :shrug:

Whatever, the floor is yours. :meditate:
In the study of Buddhadharma, it is not sufficient to learn catechisms, using the excuse, "this is how my teacher taught it." For example, I agree with Sakya Pandita about many things, but not everything.
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.

Tolya M
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Tolya M » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:17 pm

Aryamahisasakas and Mahasamgikas held that Pratityasamutpada and N8P were unconditioned. It is about definitions recognized in schools. Bhava\abhava, vastu\avastu, dravya\prajnapti in general there is a little change in N8P even if one adheres to the view of Vatsiputriya :?

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

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:25 pm

Norwegian wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:23 pm
Can you cite the part of the MMK which proves your assertion that cessations are existent phenomena? Citing Chandrakirti or Buddhapalita (their commentaries) for example, is also fine.
Thanks.
It would be Tsongkhapa's reading of Chapter 24 in its entirety.

The whole point is that according to him conventional phenomena are not negated by Madhyamika reasoning.

Not only is it possible to deny inherent existence and accept phenomena such as production, cessation, etc. the combination of such denial and acceptance is the unique feature of Madhyamika philosophy. Using the reasoning, which delineates the lack of inherent existence to negate the dependent phenomena of production, etc., is like reducing a divine deity to a devil.
Karma Phuntsho - Mipham's Dialectics and the Debates on Emptiness
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25456
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:42 pm

PuerAzaelis wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:25 pm
Norwegian wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:23 pm
Can you cite the part of the MMK which proves your assertion that cessations are existent phenomena? Citing Chandrakirti or Buddhapalita (their commentaries) for example, is also fine.
Thanks.
It would be Tsongkhapa's reading of Chapter 24 in its entirety.

The whole point is that according to him conventional phenomena are not negated by Madhyamika reasoning.
Conventionally, space and cessations are not products, so this does not support the idea that space and cessations are existents.
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
cloudburst
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by cloudburst » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:42 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

This is that same old nonsense, the term "existent" is being equivocated. Space and cessations are non-arising, or permanent phenomena, and they are phenomena that can be known by mind, and therefore they exist in the conventional sense.

space and cessations are not permanently functional, they are not functional things. Atman can be refuted easily.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25456
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:59 pm

cloudburst wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

This is that same old nonsense, the term "existent" is being equivocated. Space and cessations are non-arising, or permanent phenomena, and they are phenomena that can be known by mind, and therefore they exist in the conventional sense.

space and cessations are not permanently functional, they are not functional things. Atman can be refuted easily.
The word "phenomena" and the term "existent" are deceptive. The term "dharma" (chos) means, in this context, that which bears characteristics. Holding that space is an existent (vastu, dngos po) is totally wrongheaded.

However, space is a dharma because it has a characteristic, absence of impediment. The characteristic of cessation is absence of arising. Thus, since these three dharmas are unproduced, they cannot be held to be existents.

In other words, all existents are dharmas, but not all dharmas are existents.
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
cloudburst
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by cloudburst » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:12 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:59 pm
cloudburst wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:04 pm

The only way one can argue that space and cessations are existents is to accept the existence of nonarising existents, which of course eliminates one's ability to refute atmans, and other permanently functional phenomena.

This is that same old nonsense, the term "existent" is being equivocated. Space and cessations are non-arising, or permanent phenomena, and they are phenomena that can be known by mind, and therefore they exist in the conventional sense.

space and cessations are not permanently functional, they are not functional things. Atman can be refuted easily.
The word "phenomena" and the term "existent" are deceptive. The term "dharma" (chos) means, in this context, that which bears characteristics. Holding that space is an existent (vastu, dngos po) is totally wrongheaded.

However, space is a dharma because it has a characteristic, absence of impediment. The characteristic of cessation is absence of arising. Thus, since these three dharmas are unproduced, they cannot be held to be existents.

In other words, all existents are dharmas, but not all dharmas are existents.

you support my point that we are using the term existent in different senses. You are using it as a translation of Ngowo, we are using it to mean that which can be known by mind.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25456
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm

cloudburst wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:12 pm

you support my point that we are using the term existent in different senses. You are using it as a translation of Ngowo, we are using it to mean that which can be known by mind.
Horns of rabbits can be known by the mind as well, therefore you have accept they are existents by your definition. When I talk about these things, I use Dharma language, not sloppy everyday language.
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
cloudburst
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:49 pm

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by cloudburst » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:33 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm
Horns of rabbits can be known by the mind as well, therefore you have accept they are existents by your definition.
ha ha! cute
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm
When I talk about these things, I use Dharma language, not sloppy everyday language.
congratulations.
My point here is that terms can be used in different ways at different times and we mustn't try to win arguments by pretending we dont know that. Even people like CNN use the term existent in the sloppy sense when context is relevant.

User avatar
Virgo
Global Moderator
Posts: 2468
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Virgo » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:44 pm

Personally, it is much easier for me to understand the way Malcolm describes it, with clarity.

Kevin

Simon E.
Posts: 4576
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Simon E. » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:52 pm

Yes, but it's Gunslinger Syndrome isn't it.
Everyone knows who the top gun is.

But the younger guys feel they have to have a go...

It's not what they tell themselves of course.
"Any major dude with half a heart
Will surely tell you my friend,
Any minor world that breaks apart
Can fall together again.
Any major dude will tell you."

Steely Dan.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25456
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:54 pm

cloudburst wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:33 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm
Horns of rabbits can be known by the mind as well, therefore you have accept they are existents by your definition.
ha ha! cute
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm
When I talk about these things, I use Dharma language, not sloppy everyday language.
congratulations.
My point here is that terms can be used in different ways at different times and we mustn't try to win arguments by pretending we dont know that. Even people like CNN use the term existent in the sloppy sense when context is relevant.

I don't accept that space etc., are existents even in the sloppy everyday context.
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 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:57 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:42 pm
Conventionally, space and cessations are not products, so this does not support the idea that space and cessations are existents.
Conventionally, the cessation of Nirvana is the result of practice, which makes it sound like a product to me.

Anyway I think the real point of difference pertains to the role of reason.

Both Tsongkhapa and Mipham are fine talking about dependent origination it’s just that when Mipham waves his magic wand of analysis he thinks he can make it disappear in a puff of smoke.
Last edited by PuerAzaelis on Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:00 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:54 pm
cloudburst wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:33 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm
Horns of rabbits can be known by the mind as well, therefore you have accept they are existents by your definition.
ha ha! cute
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:21 pm
When I talk about these things, I use Dharma language, not sloppy everyday language.
congratulations.
My point here is that terms can be used in different ways at different times and we mustn't try to win arguments by pretending we dont know that. Even people like CNN use the term existent in the sloppy sense when context is relevant.

I don't accept that space etc., are existents even in the sloppy everyday context.
if you dont believe cessations can be known by mind, in the everyday conventional sense of course, I suppose theres not much that can be done for you.

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

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:01 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:54 pm
I don't accept that space etc., are existents even in the sloppy everyday context.
You must exist in a really bizarre world beyond space and time then, like Schroedinger’s cat.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

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

Re: Rabbit's Horns

Post by PuerAzaelis » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:02 pm

[dupe]
Last edited by PuerAzaelis on Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:03 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: Bing [Bot], climb-up, Coëmgenu, Motova, namoh, Soma999, Terma, Tlalok, Tolya M and 58 guests