I say there is no truth. The meaning of words only exists in our perception, so also a dictionary is not representing the truth. So if you want to correct 'mistakes', come with an argument based on some type of understanding relating to the topic. If not, I ask you again to refrain from posting, and I ask the mods to interfere when you ignore this.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:10 pm No, thank you. I will continue to correct mistakes that you present as the truth.
Jeffrey Hopkins' Tibetan-Sanskrit-English Dictionary, a dictionary of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and Tibetan, defines asāraka according to its old Prākritic sense: "essenceless." This is the sense that it carries in the Middle Indic Prākrit we call "Pāli." The other senses are derived senses and no less valid.
3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
So it is not true that the meaning of words only exists in our perception, and it's not true that a dictionary is not representing the truth?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:55 pmI say there is no truth. The meaning of words only exists in our perception, so also a dictionary is not representing the truth.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:10 pm No, thank you. I will continue to correct mistakes that you present as the truth.
Jeffrey Hopkins' Tibetan-Sanskrit-English Dictionary, a dictionary of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and Tibetan, defines asāraka according to its old Prākritic sense: "essenceless." This is the sense that it carries in the Middle Indic Prākrit we call "Pāli." The other senses are derived senses and no less valid.
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
The Buddha said he discovered the NEFP, not that he just made it up. Regardless, as you conceded from a Madhyamaka POV we can still speak of a NEFP to practice.
The NEFP then exists conventionally, and so can be practiced.Yes, you can make things up, so they exist in convention. All concepts and terms are made-up.
I've never heard of conventional reality being things we make up. Regardless, you have admitted that you don't have to have an essence in order to exist in some form.Yes one can make things up, still it is not a base for an argument.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
I can't see any reason why mods should interfere with Coëmgenu's posts. He is not, as far as I can see, breaching any of the ToS.
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
If you would have no essence, then something cannot be said to be you.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:49 pmThis line?
If "you" or the self has no essence (which is what I think anatta means) then it does not follow that self=essence (i.e. that "self" and "essence" are the same thing). The self might be without essence, everything might be without essence, and the self might still be different from everything else.Self=essence, because something cannot be said to be you, if this you would have no essence, which is also the case, therefore anatta.
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Mere convention, because everything is not-self.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:02 pmSo it is not true that the meaning of words only exists in our perception, and it's not true that a dictionary is not representing the truth?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:55 pmI say there is no truth. The meaning of words only exists in our perception, so also a dictionary is not representing the truth.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:10 pm No, thank you. I will continue to correct mistakes that you present as the truth.
Jeffrey Hopkins' Tibetan-Sanskrit-English Dictionary, a dictionary of Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit and Tibetan, defines asāraka according to its old Prākritic sense: "essenceless." This is the sense that it carries in the Middle Indic Prākrit we call "Pāli." The other senses are derived senses and no less valid.
-
- Posts: 10157
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
If you were to have no essence, then only things that have no essence could validly be said to be you.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:10 pmIf you would have no essence, then something cannot be said to be you.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:49 pmThis line?
If "you" or the self has no essence (which is what I think anatta means) then it does not follow that self=essence (i.e. that "self" and "essence" are the same thing). The self might be without essence, everything might be without essence, and the self might still be different from everything else.Self=essence, because something cannot be said to be you, if this you would have no essence, which is also the case, therefore anatta.
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
What are your views on Venerable Asaṅga? He seems to critique your ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamak ... ta_VedantaHow, again, is emptiness wrongly conceptualized? Some ascetics and Brahmins do not acknowledge that [viz. intrinsic nature] of which something is empty. Nor do they acknowledge that which is empty [viz. things and dharmas]. It is in this way that emptiness is said to be wrongly conceived. For what reason? Because that of which it is empty is non-existent, but that which is empty is existent— it is thus that emptiness is possible. What will be empty of what, where, when everything is unreal? This thing's being devoid of that is not [then] possible. Thus emptiness is wrongly conceptualized in this case.
This is taken from wiki, but I have read this critique elsewhere
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
The attempt of this thread is to determine how the 3 marks of existence and the NEFP can be unified, not resort to "the Buddha said".
Yes, but I can't see how it relates to the 3 marks of existence.The NEFP then exists conventionally, and so can be practiced.Yes, you can make things up, so they exist in convention. All concepts and terms are made-up.
No, I said that a conventional reality can exist in convention, but there is no underlying essence, therefore still no base for an argument.I've never heard of conventional reality being things we make up. Regardless, you have admitted that you don't have to have an essence in order to exist in some form.Yes one can make things up, still it is not a base for an argument.
-
- Posts: 10157
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
When you say "everything is not self", are you referring to anatta or shunyata or lack of noumena, or something else?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
You just changed the description, therefore the definition.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:16 pmThere are skies of many colours.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:38 pmThere is a sky which is blue.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:33 pm
Not the same. Blue is a description of sky, not a definition.
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Convention is the basis of intelligibility, so the price of ignoring it is perpetual misunderstanding. As we are beginning to see in this thread.
I was going to ask you to show via a syllogism or two why everything being not-self entails there being no truth. But if logic is also mere convention, then we have a problem, don't we? Even your "because" in that sentence starts to look a bit wobbly....
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
This can not be validated.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:17 pmIf you were to have no essence, then only things that have no essence could validly be said to be you.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:10 pmIf you would have no essence, then something cannot be said to be you.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 4:49 pm
This line?
If "you" or the self has no essence (which is what I think anatta means) then it does not follow that self=essence (i.e. that "self" and "essence" are the same thing). The self might be without essence, everything might be without essence, and the self might still be different from everything else.