Return to Question

edited title

Source Link

edited Jun 7, 2021 at 13:51

user13375

Why cannot something emerge from nothing What fault is found in denying Dharmakirti's notion of "substantial cause" as necessary in the arising of things?

I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism.

From what I have learnt it is asserted that:

Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its substantial causesubstantial cause).
It could not arise from nothing.
It could only arise from another moment of consciousness.

Note: the definition of "substantial cause" above comes from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika.

Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow?

More specifically, I have in mind a situation when due to a higher being's act/wish, something comes into being. What comes into being is not transformed from another previous entity, but emerges "from nothing" merely due to the higher's act/wish.

I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.

Why cannot something emerge from nothing?

I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism.

From what I have learnt it is asserted that

Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its substantial cause).
It could not arise from nothing.
It could only arise from another moment of consciousness.

Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow?

I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.

What fault is found in denying Dharmakirti's notion of "substantial cause" as necessary in the arising of things?

I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism.

From what I have learnt it is asserted that:

Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its substantial cause).
It could not arise from nothing.
It could only arise from another moment of consciousness.

Note: the definition of "substantial cause" above comes from Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika.

Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow?

I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.

Source Link

asked Jun 5, 2021 at 16:52

Sam

Why cannot something emerge from nothing?

I have read here argumentation for the continuity of mind, coming from a Geshe in Tibetan Buddhism.

From what I have learnt it is asserted that

Consciousness could not arise from matter (could not have matter as its substantial cause).
It could not arise from nothing.
It could only arise from another moment of consciousness.

Has anyone come across a Buddhist argument why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause? What faulty logical consequences would follow?

I would like to understand whether there are logical contradictions that would follow from the asserting this to be possible.