impermanence

[5heaps]

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?

[heart]

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?

When you find that moment of change, the essential impermanence, you find emptiness.

/magnus

[5heaps]

according to emptiness its which one?
the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?

[alpha]

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?

i think the problem lies in the fact that we believe that the cup exists before it breaks.
the cup manifests but never enters existence.
i think that means that although the cup appears it doesnt mean that it appears in a non deceptive way.
an example would be a mirage in the dessert.we think is something solid but when we get closer we discover that there is nothing there.
The cup needs to be investigated for its "cupness" first.
If after a thorough investigation we find the cup, that would mean that it can never break.

[Matt J]

The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth. The problem, in my mind, is that we divorce the "cup" from the earth and wish to fix it in that form. But it cannot be fixed, because there is nothing to fix it to!

[kirtu]

according to emptiness its which one?
the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?

A cup is labeled a cup by a mind. The designation cup means .... what? I was once told by a Zen teacher that the term cup only meant something conventional to drink liquids from. I told her she was wrong because for years I only used cups to measure rice and almost never drank from a cup. I distinguished between a cup and a glass.

In your example, when does a cup become non-functional (ie. it can't reasonably be labeled a cup anymore)?

or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?

An actual cup is never there to begin with.

Kirt

[Punya]

Since he expresses it so much more precisely than I can, I quote Geshe Jampa Tegchok who says:

Things are produced, but not inherently. Production is not self-existent and although things cease, there is no inherent cessation. There is no inherent stopping of things. When things cease, their cessation is not self-existent. The lack of inherent production and cessation is emptiness. http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=author&id=50

There's also a good discussion about Nagajuna's analysis of inherent existence here http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/Open% ... ndoor1.htm

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?

Both of your statements seem to assume that the cup is inherently existent but my guess is that the cup ceases to exist for you (ie non-inherently - if there is such a word!) at the moment it breaks.

[5heaps]

The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth.

a cup can break but not end? thats very absurd, because then the cup would then still exist at the time of the shards.

likewise mere ceramic is not a cup. a cup is produced by causes and conditions, just one of which is the material cause of the ceramic after having being dug from the earth. however, a cup is not merely the material of the ceramic, as you state.

an example would be a mirage in the dessert.we think is something solid but when we get closer we discover that there is nothing there.

that just means that the cup doesnt exist the way it appears. this doesnt negate its existence. this does not negate production and cessation, and does not bypass there being an answer to the question

In your example, when does a cup become non-functional (ie. it can't reasonably be labeled a cup anymore)?

that the label/boundary is set by me, and that our labels differ between us, is irrelevant
the physical parts that are designated as cup at some point come apart and the boundary 'cup' no longer works.
i am not asking about the conception of the boundary, i am asking how is it that the physical parts which function in a certain way such that it can be called a cup, fall apart.
so let me restate the question for a person whose mind has been affected by tenets:

is it that the physical collection which is fit to be called 'cup' is there and then it breaks?
or is that the collection which is fit to be called 'cup' is already gone by the time of the breaking?

my guess is that the cup ceases to exist for you (ie non-inherently - if there is such a word!) at the moment it breaks.

thanks for answering the question
my question is about this final moment when it breaks.......is the cup there when it breaks? if its there, doesnt that means its not broken?

[muni]

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?

Not easy to drink tea out of some pieces, doesn't "function" so well.
The nonexistent duality of mind-cup while drinking tea...

[Arjan Dirkse]

Things end when you say "Well that's it for that piece of crap!"

[5heaps]

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?

Not easy to drink tea out of some pieces, doesn't "function" so well.

but how did it get that way?
is the cup there at the time of its ending?
or is the cup already gone at the time of its ending?
if the cup has already gone by the time of its ending, how can we say it was "ITS" ending ie. there is no cup there to end.

[muni]

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?

Not easy to drink tea out of some pieces, doesn't "function" so well.

but how did it get that way?
is the cup there at the time of its ending?
or is the cup already gone at the time of its ending?
if the cup has already gone by the time of its ending, how can we say it was "ITS" ending ie. there is no cup there to end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KtSmXHmiqA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWiIMiEt ... ion_461210

[kirtu]

The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth.

a cup can break but not end? thats very absurd, because then the cup would then still exist at the time of the shards.

A chipped cup - the cup exists at the time of it's shards (shards not shown)

chipped_cup1.jpg (85.1 KiB) Viewed 693 times

A chipped cup - the cup exists at the time of it's shards (shards not shown and probably thrown away).

i am asking how is it that the physical parts which function in a certain way such that it can be called a cup, fall apart.

A physical force acts on a material and is translated through the material. If the material has a certain rigidity then the material will begin to bend because the force can't translate through the material. The force will then tend to cause breaks where the material is weaker than in other places. In many materials these run in "veins" (just not literal veins). Materials made from earth and glass display this property. Materials made from wood are more resistant and tend to require more of a force.

On another level, the cup ceases to be labeled a cup when a mind labels it ruined (then it might label the former cup a "ruined cup") and throws it away.


Kirt

[kirtu]

my guess is that the cup ceases to exist for you (ie non-inherently - if there is such a word!) at the moment it breaks.

thanks for answering the question
my question is about this final moment when it breaks.......is the cup there when it breaks? if its there, doesnt that means its not broken?

The cup as an existent cup is never there to begin with (so it doesn't exist). It's just an object you have labeled that can function in a certain way. The "cuppness" is just it's function not an actual ontological property (because it functions in a way to permit it's label as a cup it doesn't not exist).

Kirt

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

the cup is there in the final moment as the hardness of the ground makes it break?
or the cup is no longer there in that moment because it breaks?

Yes.

[5heaps]

The cup doesn't "end" when it breaks. It transforms into shards. The cup didn't begin when it was a cup, either. If it is a ceramic cup, it comes from the earth and returns to the earth.

a cup can break but not end? thats very absurd, because then the cup would then still exist at the time of the shards.

A chipped cup - the cup exists at the time of it's shards (shards not shown and probably thrown away).

ah, come on. our usage of "a cup breaking" is that the cup ends ie. a cup is no longer there because it broke/ended. when a cup has a chip in it it is still a cup ie. has not broken.

so, no, a cup cannot break and yet still exist at the time of the shards. the cup first has to end in order for there to be shards following the breaking of the cup

A physical force acts on a material and is translated through the material. If the material has a certain rigidity then the material will begin to bend because the force can't translate through the material. The force will then tend to cause breaks where the material is weaker than in other places. In many materials these run in "veins" (just not literal veins). Materials made from earth and glass display this property. Materials made from wood are more resistant and tend to require more of a force.

now, this is more like it.

when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?

[futerko]

when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?

If it was absent, it would avoid getting broken.

[5heaps]

when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?

If it was absent, it would avoid getting broken.

right. on the other hand, if its present it means it aint broken
so...

[futerko]

when the physical force acts on the material and breaks the cup, is the cup present at the time of its breaking?

If it was absent, it would avoid getting broken.

right. on the other hand, if its present it means it aint broken
so...

but if you put all the pieces in a box, when anyone asked you what it was, you could tell them it's a broken cup, so it must still be present!

[Tom]

is it the case that there is a final moment of a cup, in which it breaks,

I guess it depends on what we think of as "final moment" and "break" - For Dharmakirti a final moment of the cup refers to the moment of cup that is not the material cause for another moment of cup that could be counted as existent. For him momentary destruction is not externally caused and breaking here is really referring to the momentary causal sequence being blocked from continuing. So, I guess you could understand the breaker as enacting its force on this last moment of the cup to block the causal sequence from continuing. Some Madhyamikas might protest that this is very removed from the way we normally think about "cups breaking" and treat the question similar to how they treat production etc.