Timeline for What fault is found in denying Dharmakirti's notion of "substantial cause" as necessary in the arising of things?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 29, 2021 at 22:56 | comment | added | bw tho | because produced things are dependent things. if the thing doesnt arise from its substantial cause the only other causally related thing we might say it interacts for its production is thru the power of itself. it cant be something causally unrelated such as a nonexistent. is that helpful? its good to keep chasing it till u fill up all the gaps in ur reasoning | |
| Jun 28, 2021 at 3:05 | comment | added | Sam | @bwtho if you want to convert your comments on this to a separate answer, I will accept it as the one answering the question (took some time to nail it). | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 14:43 | comment | added | Sam | @bwtho But why would produced things arise of themselves had not they being dependent on substantial causes? | |
| Jun 20, 2021 at 5:22 | comment | added | bw tho | produced things are made up of parts. that is what is dependent on substantial causes, and if they did not they would arise from themselves. contributing conditions are secondary and its not even clear what purpose they would serve to a functioning thing that could arise from itself without depending on substantial causes | |
| Jun 20, 2021 at 4:32 | comment | added | Sam | @bwtho It would not arise from itself because the contributing conditions would not always be there (e.g. sometimes a higher being would wish for its arisal and sometimes he would not) | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 15:21 | comment | added | bw tho | if a produced thing didnt need a substantial cause it means it would arise from itself | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 13:18 | comment | added | user13375 | Anyway, if you want to know more about the difference between the mere absence of an existing thing and a square circle maybe this will help: buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/29190/13375 | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 13:15 | comment | added | user13375 | Exactly, and that is why I reformed my answer to address that. The difference between the absence of a dog and square circle is orthogonal to your question in the OP. | |
| Jun 19, 2021 at 12:58 | comment | added | Sam | @YesheTenley I beliecve the conundrum arised because I said in the OP explicitly "why something could not have nothing as its substantial cause?". I could have phrased it differently - Why could not something arise without a substantial cause? This way, I feel your critique would be answered but my question would still hold. | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 20:41 | comment | added | bw tho | the absence of a dog is a lack of an existing thing. the meaning of the berzin quote is not that nonexistents are absences | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 15:03 | comment | added | user13375 | It will be hard to illustrate the difference properly in the comment sections here. If you would like to know more I suggest reading Tsongkhapa or Chandrakirti or opening a new question. | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 15:01 | comment | added | user13375 | The non-existence of the square circle is a non-affirming negation. When you say it implies the actual existence of an utterly non existent thing you are implying that a square circle itself somewhere exists. That is a paradox and this by def. absurd or contradictory. The subtle point you’re missing is the difference between an affirming negation and a non-affirming one. Both Tsongkhapa and Chandrakirti wrote extensively emphasizing the difference between these two negations and why it is important not to confuse them. | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 14:58 | comment | added | user13375 | Hi Sam, I am giving the presentation according to Tsongkhapa. There is a difference between a dog not being found and the abscence of the square circle. Some negations are internal and some external. | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 12:33 | comment | added | Sam | @YesheTenley Also, you have not given a reason why the non-existence of square circles is contradictory and "absurd". You have just asserted that (strongly). | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 12:31 | comment | added | Sam | @YesheTenley At least the Gelug position is that the non-existence of certain things can be validly known, and thus is an existent. "We can also know that there is no dog in this room. We are seeing an absence of something and know that that something is not here. That is a negation. The absence of a dog in the room is validly knowable negation phenomenon. The absence exists." studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/mind-training/… | |
| Jun 13, 2021 at 10:53 | comment | added | bw tho | facts exist like the ones you gave, but what would they have to do with nonexistents | |
| Jun 12, 2021 at 13:36 | comment | added | user13375 | Further, the existence of the mental conception of the absurdity of a square circle is a thoroughly dependent one. That is, it is only in dependence upon the thought that apprehends that mental conception that it exists. Thus the existence of the mental conception of the absurdity of a square circle cannot be inherently existing. It is just a conventional truth. | |
| Jun 12, 2021 at 13:33 | comment | added | user13375 | We say that it is the mental conception of the absurdity of a square circle that is an existent and can be validly known. Therefore it is not true that the non-existence of the square circle exists. That would be contradictory and absurd. | |
| Jun 12, 2021 at 11:37 | comment | added | Sam | The non-existence of square circles is an existent fact (square circles do not exist, but their non existence does). The non existence of square circles can be validly known. Imho, in just the same way, non-existence/nothingness in general does exist as it can be validly known. | |
| Jun 12, 2021 at 8:12 | history | edited | bw tho | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jun 11, 2021 at 19:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 14, 2021 at 12:54 | |||||
| Jun 11, 2021 at 19:30 | history | answered | bw tho | CC BY-SA 4.0 |