Yes, using the "foe" button or just ignoring posts and individuals is preferable to excluding them from debate altogether, as others may well want to engage with them on the same topic.
3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
It's all description. We experience phenomena, not noumena (or "essences" as you call them).
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
What the Buddha said is important. The Buddha is recorded as saying he discovered the NEFP, not that he just made it up.
From a Madhyamaka POV, it seems to me it is because they are conventional that they have the 3 marks. From a Theravādin POV, it's because each dhamma in the NEFP arises dependent upon conditions. The same with Early Buddhism too.Yes, but I can't see how it relates to the 3 marks of existence.
Why do you need an "essence" for there to be a basis for an argument? Right now we are arguing, and according to you there is no essence at all involved.No, I said that a conventional reality can exist in convention, but there is no underlying essence, therefore still no 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
In logic, it certainly can. But as you probably consider logic to be mere convention, then you have cast yourself adrift in a world of meaningless interactions where nothing can be true or can ever be substantiated. I've seen this before with posters who are pushed back into solipsistic nonsense like this. It might be gratifying for them if they are here to get attention or troll people or to have the last word, but it rarely ends well. Good luck, Peter, in an essence-less, meaningless, unverifiable sort of way...
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Don't try to undermine me without substantiating, if everything is not-self, nothing can be known. Intelligibility would be a mere illusion. This is not a misunderstanding, unless you come with an argument which says it is so.
I don't have a problem, as I don't have an argument to make.
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?
Again, please don't try to undermine me without substantiating, it is rather childish.Even your "because" in that sentence starts to look a bit wobbly....
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Why then do you keep replying?
“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.”
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
"'If everything is not-self, nothing can be known"? That doesn't make any sense.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:39 pmDon't try to undermine me without substantiating, if everything is not-self, nothing can be known. Intelligibility would be a mere illusion. This is not a misunderstanding, unless you come with an argument which says it is so.I don't have a problem, as I don't have an argument to make.
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?
Again, please don't try to undermine me without substantiating, it is rather childish.Even your "because" in that sentence starts to look a bit wobbly....
We know things by their characteristics, and "esences" are not required.
But again, I'm not clear whether you're talking about anatta, shunyata or lack of noumena, or what exactly. It's confusing.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
It certainly cannot, because for logic to make sense, things need to be defined, for which one requires/attributes an essence.
It is not solipsistic nonsense, as even the mind cannot be known, therefore; unconditioned. Good luck with trying whatever it is that you're trying!But as you probably consider logic to be mere convention, then you have cast yourself adrift in a world of meaningless interactions where nothing can be true or can ever be substantiated. I've seen this before with posters who are pushed back into solipsistic nonsense like this. It might be gratifying for them if they are here to get attention or troll people or to have the last word, but it rarely ends well. Good luck, Peter, in an essence-less, meaningless, unverifiable sort of way...
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
No, attributes are not essence. Apparently you still haven't grasped the distinction between phenomena and noumena.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:54 pmIt certainly cannot, because for logic to make sense, things need to be defined, for which one requires/attributes an essence.
It is not solipsistic nonsense, as even the mind cannot be known, therefore; unconditioned. Good luck with trying whatever it is that you're trying!But as you probably consider logic to be mere convention, then you have cast yourself adrift in a world of meaningless interactions where nothing can be true or can ever be substantiated. I've seen this before with posters who are pushed back into solipsistic nonsense like this. It might be gratifying for them if they are here to get attention or troll people or to have the last word, but it rarely ends well. Good luck, Peter, in an essence-less, meaningless, unverifiable sort of way...
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Again, one can make things up.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:27 pmFrom a Madhyamaka POV, it seems to me it is because they are conventional that they have the 3 marks. From a Theravādin POV, it's because each dhamma in the NEFP arises dependent upon conditions. The same with Early Buddhism too.Yes, but I can't see how it relates to the 3 marks of existence.
There is no base.Why do you need an "essence" for there to be a basis for an argument? Right now we are arguing, and according to you there is no essence at all involved.No, I said that a conventional reality can exist in convention, but there is no underlying essence, therefore still no base for an argument.
Re: 3 marks of existence vs N8FP
Based on the textual evidence, the Buddha didn't think he made up the NEFP. Rather he claimed to have discovered it. I don't think Venerable Nāgārjuna thought the path was "made up" either. That the NEFP and dhammas are just things we make up is your claim alone. A claim with no substance.
This didn't answer my question. Why does a lack of essence or base mean an argument cannot be made? You are currently arguing with me and you claim there is no base or essence behind the words. You are therefore contradicting yourself.There is no base.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
You keep making arguments, yet you say you have no argument to make. That being so, you shouldn't be replying.
“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
We already went over this with your sky example. Even characteristics are giving essence. Blue, etc.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:52 pm"'If everything is not-self, nothing can be known"? That doesn't make any sense.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:39 pmDon't try to undermine me without substantiating, if everything is not-self, nothing can be known. Intelligibility would be a mere illusion. This is not a misunderstanding, unless you come with an argument which says it is so.I don't have a problem, as I don't have an argument to make.
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?
Again, please don't try to undermine me without substantiating, it is rather childish.Even your "because" in that sentence starts to look a bit wobbly....
We know things by their characteristics, and "esences" are not required.
Anatta, this is clearly stated previously.But again, I'm not clear whether you're talking about anatta, shunyata or lack of noumena, or what exactly. It's confusing.