Malcolm wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:08 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:39 am
Malcolm wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:32 am
No. Those four are not arguments in a proof. That is the point.
You need to demonstrate that.
If you claim that these are a list of perspectives the Buddha has taught in very specific contexts the first step would be saying what those contexts were, and then maybe outlining which edifying results they lead to in their context, if you were feeling particularly generous.
You can read the commentaries on this point.
And they don't really say, tbh. It's like they can't think of four specific times when the Buddha said "all exists" or "all both exists and doesn't" (etc) to edifying effect, but they are enamoured with the idea of the Buddha having taught these various positions, because it is a good way to sweep the weird quasi-Vedantic positive tetralemma under the rug.
Incidentally, in my experience most people don't have access to extensive commentaries on the MMK that aren't modern.
The closest thing is when the Buddha says something to the effect of "I am not at variance with the world. What is accepted by the world is accepted by me", that is how Ven Candrakīrti defends the statement. It is rather weak on terms of pointing out specific times when the Buddha taught each
position above to edifying effect.
Can you think of a time when the Buddha said all exists?
You have the *Jānussoṇyaisarvāstisūtra 生聞一切有經 SA 320 & the Sabbasutta SN 35.23 from the Pāli texts.
Can you think of a time when the Buddha said all is nonexistent?
This one is just par for the course.
Can you think of a time when the Buddha said "all is both existent and nonexistent?"
That one sounds more like the ascetic Zhiyi than the ascetic Gautama.
Can you think of a time when the Buddha taught that all neither exists not does not exist?
This one is basically Vedanta. Brahman is everywhere and nowhere. Nothing is reachable. Everything is ineffable. Ineffable monism, essentially.
Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.
T1911.6b15, Móhēzhǐguān <---- violation of lemmata 3 & 4?