Sunyata and dependent origination

[deff]

it can be a figure of speech while really knowing the "wrong views" don't actually exist

it's a means to explain the view (or viewlessness) of absolute truth using conventional truth - i'm sure namdrol doesn't have any contradictions with his view despite these semantics

[cloudburst]

it can be a figure of speech while really knowing the "wrong views" don't actually exist

it's a means to explain the view (or viewlessness) of absolute truth using conventional truth - i'm sure namdrol doesn't have any contradictions with his view despite these semantics

according to you, figure of speech exists, wrong views do not, means exist, two truths exist, certainty exist, Namdrol exists, semantics exist.
but according to Namdrol, all these are wrong views. How will you defend yourself from his attack on your views?How will he avoid self-contradiction?

Are "is" and "is not" wrong views as N asserts? if so, wrong views exist. So if "is" is a wrong view, then "x and not x *are* wrong views" is a wrong view.
Namdrol's post is wrong view. QED.

[deff]

i don't think any of those actually exist

this is why buddha taught the two truths. everything is just an expedient means, absolute truth cannot be conveyed (or conceptualized)

another way to put it is that the conventional is a net of wrong views that we have to work with and navigate in order to communicate. that said, the conventional doesn't actually exist (nor does it's wrong-view-ness), it's like a mirage or an illusion

[muni]

Dream constructions by apprehension like children lost in their aprehended game which is real. the thought-phenomena and phenomena what seems to appaer real and having identity, independent selves..., but when we are in a country with another language and culture, other apprehensions and habits; those people are doing so foolish, but we never.

Dream is/is not. conventionally concepts to cut through.

ps: By dependent playstation, completely lost in appaerances by focus on the screen, easy to forget from where game-action starts.

[cloudburst]

i don't think any of those actually exist

this is why buddha taught the two truths. everything is just an expedient means, absolute truth cannot be conveyed (or conceptualized)

another way to put it is that the conventional is a net of wrong views that we have to work with and navigate in order to communicate. that said, the conventional doesn't actually exist (nor does it's wrong-view-ness), it's like a mirage or an illusion

The problem for you is that you want it both ways.... The conventional (and wrong views) do exist according to Namdrol, but then when pressed on the circular logic of your position, you say "well they don't actually exist." So you are in direct contradiction with yourself, but don't seem to enjoy it when I say so.

What to do?

[Dechen Norbu]

You continue writing nonsense, cloudburst, while thinking you're being very clever.

[cloudburst]

You continue writing nonsense, cloudburst, while thinking you're being very clever.

I understand it's very difficult to answer.

[Malcolm]

Emptiness is the abandoning of wrong views itself.

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".

N

Wrong view.
Can't say "is" is wrong view while saying "Emptiness is..."
Self contradiction.

Such is the nature of language and the reason conventional discourse, however necessary, is predicated on cognitive error. Relative truth, such as it is, is a product of a deluded cognition. The error that relative truth rests on are the two views "is" and "is not". Nevertheless, we need to resort to conventional discourse in order to communicate the flaws of conventional discourse and so it is necessary to resort to the use of the verb "to be" in all its many forms in order to form intelligible sentences.

Blame the game, not the player.

N

[Dechen Norbu]

This is so obvious that I don't know why we are having an argument about it. Nothing can be said regarding the ultimate, since it's not conceptual. When we talk about emptiness, we talk about the ultimate. Buddhadharma is conceptual, thus a set of illusions to free one from illusion. It's the finger pointing and not the moon.

[mudra]

This is so obvious that I don't know why we are having an argument about it. Nothing can be said regarding the ultimate, since it's not conceptual. When we talk about emptiness, we talk about the ultimate. Buddhadharma is conceptual, thus a set of illusions to free one from illusion. It's the finger pointing and not the moon.

I don't have a major quibble with this DN, but only wish to add that there is the aspect of Buddhadharma as true cessations, and that is not conceptual.

I am not sure if you will find this too fanciful but I think of 'doctrinal' Buddhadharma as an extension of realization (the Buddha teaching in such a way that we can understand is reaching out) so there is 'the finger pointing at the moon' aspect but there is also the 'moon's rays' aspect.

[Dechen Norbu]

This is so obvious that I don't know why we are having an argument about it. Nothing can be said regarding the ultimate, since it's not conceptual. When we talk about emptiness, we talk about the ultimate. Buddhadharma is conceptual, thus a set of illusions to free one from illusion. It's the finger pointing and not the moon.

I don't have a major quibble with this DN, but only wish to add that there is the aspect of Buddhadharma as true cessations, and that is not conceptual.

I am not sure if you will find this too fanciful but I think of 'doctrinal' Buddhadharma as an extension of realization (the Buddha teaching in such a way that we can understand is reaching out) so there is 'the finger pointing at the moon' aspect but there is also the 'moon's rays' aspect.

I can live with that analogy without any problem.

[cloudburst]

Blame the game, not the player.

ha ha. Play on, player.

Such is the nature of language and the reason conventional discourse, however necessary, is predicated on cognitive error. Relative truth, such as it is, is a product of a deluded cognition. The error that relative truth rests on are the two views "is" and "is not". Nevertheless, we need to resort to conventional discourse in order to communicate the flaws of conventional discourse and so it is necessary to resort to the use of the verb "to be" in all its many forms in order to form intelligible sentences.
N

Of course I generally agree, but the problem that you seem stuck with is that not only are you using illusory language in order to escape an illusory prison, you are using it in a way that violates your own purpose. Once you accept contradiction in your own system, you have stripped the screw of your reasoning and can no longer make it turn.

If "is" is wrong view, then you could also say that darkness comes from bright light. If there is no necessary reason to avoid self-contradiction, anything can be claimed, and there can be no valid reason adduced to show that it is incorrect, as these reasons win conventional discourse depend on the law of non-contradiction, or excluded middle. You lose the liberating path.

[Malcolm]

Of course I generally agree, but the problem that you seem stuck with is that not only are you using illusory language in order to escape an illusory prison, you are using it in a way that violates your own purpose. Once you accept contradiction in your own system, you have stripped the screw of your reasoning and can no longer make it turn.

The case you are making is that using forms of the verb "to be" amounts to making a philosophical commitment. But it does not.

If "is" is wrong view, then you could also say that darkness comes from bright light.

This is a non-sequitor. You cannot force this consequence.

If there is no necessary reason to avoid self-contradiction, anything can be claimed, and there can be no valid reason adduced to show that it is incorrect, as these reasons win conventional discourse depend on the law of non-contradiction, or excluded middle. You lose the liberating path.

"Is and is not" are not my positions. They are the positions of others {Samkhya, etc.]. Therefore, the fault of self-contradiction is not entailed. Either you accept the dualistic position of others and defend them, or you accept that asti and nasti are wrong views described by the Buddha as such.

N

[cloudburst]

Of course I generally agree, but the problem that you seem stuck with is that not only are you using illusory language in order to escape an illusory prison, you are using it in a way that violates your own purpose. Once you accept contradiction in your own system, you have stripped the screw of your reasoning and can no longer make it turn.

The case you are making is that using forms of the verb "to be" amounts to making a philosophical commitment. But it does not.

It seems like you are echoing what several have said so far, which is quite right. If you use these words understanding that there is no ontological commitment, what you are actually implicitly saying is that things don't exist by their nature. The point is perfect, and this is how it is. You are using the terms conventionally, understanding that they entail no commitment with respect to the nature of things. Therefore, to be precise, when pressed you should clarify that things do not exist by nature, yet they do exist, are produced etc. Just as Buddha et al did.

If "is" is wrong view, then you could also say that darkness comes from bright light.

This is a non-sequitor. You cannot force this consequence.

Forcing a consequence is not the point. You are right that no consequence can be forced here, for if "is" is wrong view, you really can't force any consequence at all. That is the point. One could say anything.

"Is and is not" are not my positions. They are the positions of others {Samkhya, etc.]. Therefore, the fault of self-contradiction is not entailed. Either you accept the dualistic position of others and defend them, or you accept that asti and nasti are wrong views described by the Buddha as such.

N

When you said "is and is not are wrong views," is and is not became your position, becasue you claim here there are wrong views. Unless you clarify that in some way, we have to accept that your words are to be accepted according to their meanings. Therefore the fault of self-contradiction IS entailed, like it or not.

In order to understand Buddha's position, we must be prepared to use our reasoning, as you well understand. AS a result, we are not consigned to accept either dualism or Buddhist literalism, especially when such literalism entails a gross loos of discrimination.

[Malcolm]

When you said "is and is not are wrong views," is and is not became your position, becasue you claim here there are wrong views...

No, since I am not reporting my own position. I have not advanced either position, so I do not accept the fault that you ascribe.

N

[cloudburst]

When you said "is and is not are wrong views," is and is not became your position, becasue you claim here there are wrong views...

No, since I am not reporting my own position. I have not advanced either position, so I do not accept the fault that you ascribe.

N

Pehaps I misunderstood.

But there are only two wrong views i.e. "is" and "is not".

N

When i saw this claim with your 'signature' attached, it naturally occurred to me that you were representing your own position.
According to you, whose position is "is-and-is-not are wrong views?"

[Malcolm]

When i saw this claim with your 'signature' attached, it naturally occurred to me that you were representing your own position.
According to you, whose position is "is-and-is-not are wrong views?"

"Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation.

Nāgārjuna states:

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,
‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.
Because of that, is and is not
are not made into a basis by the wise.

N

[cloudburst]

When i saw this claim with your 'signature' attached, it naturally occurred to me that you were representing your own position.
According to you, whose position is "is-and-is-not are wrong views?"

"Is" leads to the view of eternalism. "Is not" leads to the view of annihilation.

Nāgārjuna states:

‘Is’ is holding to permanence,
‘Is not’ is an annihilationist view.
Because of that, is and is not
are not made into a basis by the wise.

N

So you are abandoning "is and is not are wrong views?" You have clearly stated it is not your position, and seem disinclined to mention whose position it might be.
Just so we're clear, are you now advancing your own position, or is this too the position of another, and if so, whose, please?

Regarding your quotation of Nagarjuna, do you understand this to mean exactly what it says, or would you offer some interpretation or qualification?
What is a view of 'Is not', according to you?

For example, am I a nihilist if I say "It is not Friday today?"
Is that a view of 'Is not?"

[Malcolm]

I will not respond to sophistry on your part.

What is a view of 'Is not', according to you?

A view of "is not" is "this thing that existed, this no longer exists now", as Nagarjuna points out:

The transformation of an existent into another
is the non-existent mentioned by people.

N

[cloudburst]

I will not respond to sophistry on your part.

What is a view of 'Is not', according to you?

A view of "is not" is "this thing that existed, this no longer exists now", as Nagarjuna points out:

The transformation of an existent into another
is the non-existent mentioned by people.

N

I see you hiding there. The reason why you will not answer is your own internal contradictions. If not, please demonstrate my error.

The fact that we can and do say it is not Friday today, as you tacitly accept, or Lady Gaga is not a man, shows that a raw "is not" is what Nagarjuna meant, since neither of these claims entail a nihilistic position.
As a result we can say that "is not" (or "is" for that matter) is not necessarily a wrong view, nor does it necessarily lead to a wrong view. So whoever claims that "is and is not" are or necessarily lead to wrong views without being able to explain it in a non-contradictory fashion, as Nagarjuna does, is incorrect.

This means you.

As you correctly say, something that existed by nature or inherently going out of existence would be one of many different types of Nihilistic view. Largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, though.