Cupness

[norman]

The cupness of a cup doesn't derive from anything; neither consciousness, nor Dependent Origination, nor anything else (function, condition, shape, use, etc), since all these are phenomenal as concepts.

The "origination", or source as pertaining to its ”cupness”, and its phenomenal awareness (vijnana, if you will) as being-a-cup, are already ”implied” in the perceived appearance, as such (via the skandhas).

Its only existence as a phenomenon (and all existence is phenomenal) IS its very cupness, and that ”cupness” (function, condition, shape, use, etc) appears as an Absence, or VOID, i.e., virtual, when being presented as an appearance, that appearance being what we call ”cup”.

So that the manifestation of ”cup” is its Cupness (function, condition, shape, use, etc) or what we call ”Dependent Origination”, but its Cupness is Absent as a phenomenon, or AS the presence of the Cup.

virtual [ˈvɜːtʃʊəl]
adj
1. having the essence or effect but not the appearance or form

[norman]

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

[Josef]

I like to put things in cups.
Liquids preferably.
Once they are in the cup I like to drink them.

[Jinzang]

According to Dharmakirti's apoha theory of universals, the cupness of a cup is derived from the exclusion of everything that is not a cup.

[maybay]

According to Dharmakirti's apoha theory of universals, the cupness of a cup is derived from the exclusion of everything that is not a cup.

I don't know why but this makes me laugh.

[norman]

According to Dharmakirti's apoha theory of universals, the cupness of a cup is derived from the exclusion of everything that is not a cup.

Do you have a quote? I'd like to read it.
What we intuit in the meaning of the word "cup" is its Cupness (its qualities), and that Cupness is what we experience as "cup".
So that Cupness has no appearance in itself, other than as the appear-ing of the cup, nor does "cup" appear other than as its Cupness.

The presence of phenomenality is the absence of noumenality, and vice versa.

[kirtu]

I had a Kwan Um teacher who once asked me what a cup was for in my experience. I told her that a cup was for measuring rice and drinking things. She became pretty insistent that a cup was only for filling things with liquids and drinking them. I told her that I really used cups mostly for measuring rice in my life. She thought that was the wrong answer.

More recently I have abandoned measuring rice with cups and making tea more and putting that in cups.

Kirt

[Josef]

I had a Kwan Um teacher who once asked me what a cup was for in my experience. I told her that a cup was for measuring rice and drinking things. She became pretty insistent that a cup was only for filling things with liquids and drinking them. I told her that I really used cups mostly for measuring rice in my life. She thought that was the wrong answer.

More recently I have abandoned measuring rice with cups and making tea more and putting that in cups.

Kirt

[muni]

I like to put things in cups.
Liquids preferably.
Once they are in the cup I like to drink them.

[Kilaya.]

I had a Kwan Um teacher who once asked me what a cup was for in my experience. I told her that a cup was for measuring rice and drinking things. She became pretty insistent that a cup was only for filling things with liquids and drinking them. I told her that I really used cups mostly for measuring rice in my life. She thought that was the wrong answer.

The right answer she probaly expected would have been lifting an imaginary cup to your mouth and imitate drinking.

[White Lotus]

reality is such as it is, it cannot be defined (only experienced), though there have been many attempts to do so. it has been said that the cup is mind, emptiness, energy, basis. etc etc. in the awakening of faith (mahayanasradhotpadasastra) we are told that all things are just as they are, or it could be said 'are not' from the perspective of emptiness... mere appearances, arisings in the mind of the mind. not even 'one' can be said. things just things, not even things, just so. this is the perspective of suchness (tathata).

sorry for my poor explanation.

simplest just to say... ''just a cup!''

best wishes, Tom.

[Quiet Heart]

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

-----------------------------------------

Well....

The "emptiness" is the space enclosed by the "Cupness" of the Cup.
Both the "emptiness" and the "cupness" are two aspects of the same thing/object-location/ percieved experience.
Like two sides of a coin...heads and tails...they can not be seperated from each other.Three seperate illusions, they define each other's existance. Therefore "cupness" and "emptiness" are inter-dependent.
All of them, "cupness", "emptiness", and the perception that is the "experience" of seeing them are all illusions of the one same inter-dependent entity.
In Zen terms they, all three, are "fingers pointing at the moon reflected in still water".
The pointing finger is not the reality, the relection is not the reality, the still water is not the reality.
All these apparently valid illusions are generated in the mind...but they are NOT mind only..they all exist somehow outside of that mind illusion.

If I ever figure out the rest I'll try to let you know.
It goes very deep quite quickly.

[ground]

"Cupness" is caused by biochemical structures within the brain

[Jinzang]

According to Dharmakirti's apoha theory of universals, the cupness of a cup is derived from the exclusion of everything that is not a cup.

Do you have a quote? I'd like to read it.

The best discussion I know of is at the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. I don't think Dharmakirit's Drop of Reasoning has been translated yet.

[kirtu]

I had a Kwan Um teacher who once asked me what a cup was for in my experience. I told her that a cup was for measuring rice and drinking things. She became pretty insistent that a cup was only for filling things with liquids and drinking them. I told her that I really used cups mostly for measuring rice in my life. She thought that was the wrong answer.

The right answer she probaly expected would have been lifting an imaginary cup to your mouth and imitate drinking.

Maybe but Kwan Um is overly devoted to right function and imaginary cup drinking is just silly. But measuring rice with a cup is clearly a correct function. Until my ex got me to do that I just guestimated the amount of rice to put is a pot. With a cup I can measure it. Maybe she didn't expect me to eat rice everyday or something? Anyway, drinking is measuring followed by consumption.

Additionally - and this is a bit gross - I knew of an early natural health/fasting expert who defecated into a cup once in order to investigate the material his body was expelling (which turned out- he claimed - to be mercury ingested over time from a common remedy from the 20's).

So there's more than one usage for a cup - whose function is fundamentally to hold something for some secondary purpose.

Kirt

[Kilaya.]

Drinking from an imaginary cup during a Kwanum kongan interview to demonstrate "correct function" from an outsider's point of view is not any sillier than imagining yourself a great divine being dressed as a medieval Indian prince or princess, and saving all beings from suffering during vajrayana practice. Both are methods that may result in realization of some kind.

[Matt J]

I'll bet if you examine the 32 parts of the cup, you will find no cupness.

[conebeckham]

"Cupness" is caused by biochemical structures within the brain

And what, pray tell, caused those biochemical structures within the brain to cause "cupness?"

[ground]

"Cupness" is caused by biochemical structures within the brain

And what, pray tell, caused those biochemical structures within the brain to cause "cupness?"

This question is caused by biochemical structures within the brain, too

[kirtu]

Drinking from an imaginary cup during a Kwanum kongan interview to demonstrate "correct function" from an outsider's point of view is not any sillier than imagining yourself a great divine being dressed as a medieval Indian prince or princess, and saving all beings from suffering during vajrayana practice. Both are methods that may result in realization of some kind.

Deity yoga is not "imagining yourself a great divine being dressed as a medieval Indian price or princess..." although that is the visualized iconography. Deity yoga is not a dress up game. One takes the result (Buddhahood) as the path (the means to accomplishing Buddhahood).

To me Kwan Um "correct function" is excessively constrained. The chanting and bowing practice is good though!

Kirt