impermanence

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: impermanence

Postby 5heaps » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:49 am

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?
5heaps
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: impermanence

Postby 5heaps » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:43 pm

err i wrote the wrong word: "car here was just a sound-generality, not a meaning-generality, just as naming shards a cup is just a SOUND-generality." originally i mistakingly wrote meaning-generality
5heaps
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: impermanence

Postby Parasamgate » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:18 pm

5heaps wrote:
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?


I think the asterisk should go between the two moments in the little illustration I made and after the first moment which here I would designate as "the final moment of cup." However, I am not so sure it is meaningful distinction because the asterisk is meant to convey an instantaneous and durationless non-moment. As such it is not of the same nature as the two moments. So in the illustration it is helpful to my mind to put it between the two moments, but I'm not sure that insisting upon it is altogether correct since it is important to remember that the asterisk is not a moment of time so asking what its temporal order is kind of begging the question. Nonetheless, it seems fitting to my mind that the asterisk is placed after the final moment of cup.

Also, it occurred to me that asking "how the cup ends" is different from asking "when the cup ends" in the sense that the answers to each question might be different. In this case, I think that asking "when the cup ends" helps to illuminate "how the cup ends" by way of an answer that was altogether unexpected to my common sense. Thank you for that :)
Parasamgate
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:30 pm

5heaps, this is your position (distilled from what you said)
'cup' is an unchanging category
knowable only in dependence on having seen a valid basis.
this valid basis is the changing thing that is subject to disintegration/impermanence.
unchanging things are not.

What doesn't make sense is an unchanging category dependent on seeing a basis that is changing.
You don't explain why you think 'cup' is an unchanging category,
even though I have presented evidence that it is.
Nor have you established why
seeing a changing thing that is subject to disintegration/impermanence
is a valid basis.

Further, you assert:
'cup' is never produced by causes and conditions nor does it disintegrate.
the cup that holds water and which lacks intrinsic existence is produced and must at some point end.

So, I must assume you mean that the concept of a cup is not produced and does not disintegrate
Because, obviously a cup that holds water does is produced by causes and conditions and does disintegrate.
But you haven't explained why the abstract concept "cup"
is never produced by causes and conditions nor does it disintegrate.
As soon as I stop thinking about a cup,
the concept of it is gone.

And you end with:
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

The question is "how" ...what?
and I totally do not understand the phrase:
the machinations of the in the case external physical basis .

This is what I meant by nonsensical.
I really would like to know what it is you are trying to get at.

I will quit reiterating. Will you 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?"

.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:39 pm

You are asserting that an object of awareness (i.e., cup)
has some kind of intrinsic reality (inherent, non-dependently arising existence)
and then asking what happens to its intrinsic reality
when the object changes (i.e., breaks).
Is this correct?
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:20 pm

5heaps wrote: only things which possess all the necessary characteristics fall into the category 'cup'.

:rolling:
I understand what apoha is.
If you exclude everything which is not a characteristic of an object,
whatever remains is what characterizes the object.
But this is where you have to be careful.
if you walk into your kitchen and find a broken cup on the floor,
you still regard it as a cup, a broken cup
and not a pile of unidentifiable matter.

Eliminating characteristics, which is process of negation,
only establishes something in terms of what it is not.
This is not the same as establishing something
in terms of what it is.
Just because I am not in the car
does not mean I am in the house.

So, are you asking
what happened to that thing that was established
through the process of apoha?

This is like the story of the three travelers
who over paid for their room.


Three travelers stop at an inn
and the desk clerk charges them each $10
so all totalled ,they pay $30.
later the innkeeper tells the desk clerk that
because they are sharing one bed,
the rate should only be $25
and to take $5 back to the 3 guests.
The desk clerk doesn't know how he will divide $5 among 3 men
so he keeps $2 and gives each guest $1 back.
So, the problem is,
The three guests have now each paid $9 and 9x3 is $27
the desk clerk kept $2
2 + 27 = 29
But they originally paid $30
So what happened to the extra dollar?

.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby Adamantine » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:56 pm

5heaps wrote:
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.


Your isolated response to two minor points in my post incorporating a number of related points, some of which were more essential, and the nature of your response makes me believe you didn't quite grasp my overall position. I believe it may be because it was inconvenient to your predetermined position from which you began this thread. It has indeed become evident that this is not an exploration for you, but an attempt to prove something to others you already believe you've determined. I remain unconvinced.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: impermanence

Postby Adamantine » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:01 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:What doesn't make sense is an unchanging category dependent on seeing a basis that is changing.
You don't explain why you think 'cup' is an unchanging category,
even though I have presented evidence that it is.
Nor have you established why
seeing a changing thing that is subject to disintegration/impermanence
is a valid basis.


.


He feels he addressed that in reply to my post: i.e., if the monkey uses the cup as a hat then he is talking about the impermanence of the hat, as opposed to the cup. However, I don't think he sees how this position quickly becomes nonsensical. I also believe he is taking the idea of "valid basis" to an extreme that is untenable. The label inferred from "valid basis" is also dependent, relative, conditional, and impermanent, as is the valid basis itself.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:56 pm

5heaps wrote:
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.

That is an irrelevant point.
You can "validly label" a half a cup as half a cup.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:02 am

Suppose a cup has had some coffee in it, or some tea.
Or maybe somebody put out a cigarette in it.
So, now it needs to be washed. It's in with the dirty dishes.
Is it still a cup?
Referring back to your original question
(which I will continue to do, by the way)
and applying it to this particular situation,
is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it becomes dirty,
or is it the case that the cup no longer exists during the moment that it becomes dirty?
If we assume that "cup" means an unbroken cup,
can we also assume that "cup" means a clean cup?
If not, why not,
and if so, then
how is cup/broken cup
significantly any different from
cup /dirty cup?
Aren't all of the characteristics you refer to as comprising a "cup"
merely a lot of assumptions?
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:20 am

5heaps wrote: 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
**********************
what we are doing when we call half a cup a cup ... is labeling 'cup' on an internal visualization or memory which itself possesses the necessary characteristics to be labeled 'cup'.
Do these two items fit your definition of cup?
They are clearly (validly?) labeled as "half cup".
Yet each one fully satisfies your definition of "cup".
Just how would you explain this?
Are they cups, or half cups?
Does having two of them make a whole cup?.
Attachments
halfacup.jpg
Half a cup?
halfacup.jpg (31.22 KiB) Viewed 377 times
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:56 pm

5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.

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?


This is a good question.
Are you referring to an actual physical object, something made of ceramic perhaps,
or the abstract concept of "cup"?
Which one is breaking?
The answer might depend on that
or it might be
C. None of the above
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: impermanence

Postby bub » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:26 pm

5heaps wrote:i am trying to work out how things end..does anyone have any idea?
for example consider a cup which falls off a table and breaks.

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?


Hello there :)
If you had never seen a cup before(or any concept) what would you be seeing? You would see material moving and changing towards the ground and then when the material reaches the ground you would continue to see the material moving and changing was even. So seeing like this, the material was never a cup. This is seeing things more as they ultimately are. When you stop looking at the material(the cup) then it ends.
bub
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:25 am

Re: impermanence

Postby 5heaps » Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:18 pm

bub wrote:If you had never seen a cup before(or any concept) what would you be seeing? You would see material moving and changing towards the ground and then when the material reaches the ground you would continue to see the material moving and changing was even. So seeing like this, the material was never a cup.

when the material reaches the ground you would say 'the thing broke'.

whether you use the word "cup" instead of "thing" or any other word is almost irrelevant. likewise lacking sufficient knowledge to know much about the object, and thus have a very limited concept of the object, is also almost irrelevant.

"the thing broke", the thing is not the word "thing" or the concept 'thing'

This is seeing things more as they ultimately are.

not really. unbreakable particles form coarser objects, which end. the question of impermanence and momentariness pertains to these, the things upon which names and concepts are imputed. giving an answer about names and concepts when presented with a question about substance illustrates some faulty thinking i think
5heaps
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Previous

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart and 24 guests

>