Jump to content


Photo

Validness Or Invalidness In Absolute Sense


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Sasha

Sasha

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St-Petersburg

Posted 18 April 2016 - 12:02 PM

If smth exists inherently, validness or invalidness of its representation would depend on its self-nature. If representation fits with smth’s self-nature – it is valid, if doesn’t match – not valid. But because anything has no its self-nature, no one representation can be valid or invalid in absolute sense. It can be valid or not according to people’s public opinion of what it is.

What do you think?


Edited by Sasha, 18 April 2016 - 12:06 PM.


#2 Goodie

Goodie

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovenia

Posted 19 April 2016 - 09:59 AM

It can be valid or not according to people’s public opinion of what it is.

I don't think that conventional reality is established by what people believe.

Otherwise if people's public opinion is that karma does not exist, then karma would not exist. However, it does exist, even if no one would have any concept about it.

#3 Sasha

Sasha

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St-Petersburg

Posted 19 April 2016 - 03:46 PM

So, then are you agree with the statement: there are only 2 possibilities to exist in absolute way(ultimately) – either smth exists from its own side(inherently or having its self-nature on its side) or smth exists according to imputation(i.e. according to people’s public opinion).

Or there can be some 3rd variant?


Existence of karma and existence of I – what is the difference? I exists by mere imputation, why karma cannot exists in the same mode? 



#4 Goodie

Goodie

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovenia

Posted 19 April 2016 - 10:53 PM

So, then are you agree with the statement: there are only 2 possibilities to exist in absolute way(ultimately) – either smth exists from its own side(inherently or having its self-nature on its side) or smth exists according to imputation(i.e. according to people’s public opinion).

Or there can be some 3rd variant?

As far as I understand Gelug Prasangika, they would not agree with first possibility because they do not accept inherent existence. They would also not accept the second possibility, because public opinion is not necessarily valid. Instead, they would say that imputation must be valid, which means that there can't exist another valid mind which can contradict the imputation. 

 

Existence of karma and existence of I – what is the difference? I exists by mere imputation, why karma cannot exists in the same mode? 

There is no difference, both exist by mere imputation according to Gelug Prasangika, but imputation doesn't mean just public opinion.



#5 Jamgön

Jamgön

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 April 2016 - 10:54 PM

When you say that there are only two possibilities to exist in an ultimate way... I understand the two truths differently. Ultimately, the deepest nature of any phenomenon is emptiness, or absence of inherent existence of that phenomenon, but conventionally things do exist and function, according to the causes created by beings that are in contact with that phenomena. And it seems that it does not only depend on the "creativity" of imputation, but it depends on the results of causes created in the past, so there is a "mechanical" causality that cannot be magically transformed at will. A car, for example, cannot function conventionally as a helicopter and vice versa. But both can either function well and they can also break down.

It seems to me that when we talk about conventional truth, we observe functionality of things and their valid established existence, the causes and conditions, which ultimately have no independent existence.

 

If we understood deeply that our (sense of) I is merely imputed, then we would probably create much less karma, and if we understood the emptiness of I, we would stop creating karma. As far as i understand, these two are connected like that. Maybe that goes in the direction of the question.



#6 Sasha

Sasha

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St-Petersburg

Posted 20 April 2016 - 04:07 PM

Instead, they would say that imputation must be valid, which means that there can't exist another valid mind which can contradict the imputation. 

But if public opinion is not valid – it means that there is mind which is valid and contradicts the public opinion. How do you prove the validness of this second mind?

 

 

imputation doesn't mean just public opinion.

Yes, but I’m focusing more on this narrow subject “validness” (the state or condition of being valid, or in a simple words - unmistaken answer to a question “how do we know that this is this and not that?”). “Imputation” is different subject. These 2 subjects have 4 possibilities:

1.    smth which is valid and imputation: valid imputation

2.    smth which is valid but not imputation: valid reason

3.    smth whis is not valid but is a imputation: mistaken imputation

4.    smth which is not valid and not a imputation: mistaken reason


Jamgon-la, in fact that is not about 2 truths. It is about 1 ultimate truth. If smth exists by mere imputation – it cannot exist inherently. And if smth exists inherently – it cannot exist by mere imputation. It is controversial or mutually exclusive (‘gal ba). So, when we analyze how things exist ultimately we find that they exists by mere imputation.

Completely agree on what you write about the 2 truths. I have focused slightly on a specific aspect – validness(unmistaken answer to a question “how do we know that this is this and not that?”). 

If there is a dependence on imputation, then question comes: what is the criteria of validness? How do you know that this imputation is valid and that imputation is not valid? 

As Boris write about valid imputation: there can't exist another valid mind which can contradict the imputation.

So, only criteria of validness of imputation – absence of other valid mind which is in contradiction with 1st imputation. But in the situation when we have 2 minds with the opposite or controversial imputations - how do we define which is valid and which is not?



#7 Goodie

Goodie

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovenia

Posted 21 April 2016 - 07:31 AM

But if public opinion is not valid – it means that there is mind which is valid and contradicts the public opinion. How do you prove the validness of this second mind?

 

It is not that public opinion is always invalid. It can be valid or invalid. Validity is proved if the mind has valid cognition, which is either valid direct perception or valid inference.



#8 Sasha

Sasha

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St-Petersburg

Posted 21 April 2016 - 10:05 AM

It is not that public opinion is always invalid. It can be valid or invalid. Validity is proved if the mind has valid cognition, which is either valid direct perception or valid inference.

When two minds perceive directly some object and one(public opinion) perceives it as a table and second as a chair – how do you prove the validness?

By performing the functions? But in situation when this object performs function as a table for public and for the second mind it performs the functions of a chair?



#9 Sasha

Sasha

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St-Petersburg

Posted 21 April 2016 - 10:40 AM

So, also it can be 2 controversial valid inferential cognitions. For example on a subject: white color of a cloud.

1 - It is subset of a white color, because it is white

2 - It is subset of color of cloud, because it is color of cloud

How do you prove what cognition is valid and what is not valid?



#10 Goodie

Goodie

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovenia

Posted 22 April 2016 - 10:51 AM

When two minds perceive directly some object and one(public opinion) perceives it as a table and second as a chair – how do you prove the validness?

By performing the functions? But in situation when this object performs function as a table for public and for the second mind it performs the functions of a chair?

Yes, I think by performing the function can be one criteria.
There is no problem if an object is called, perceived or used differently by different groups of beings. For example, glass of liquid is for humans valid as water, for gods valid as nectar, for pretas valid as pus. This is because for each of these groups it performs a function which is in accordance with their karma. However it would not be valid for preta to think it is nectar, because for preta it does not perform the function of nectar.
 
Also, it must not contradict logic. For example, permanent self can never exist and therefore can not validly exist, even if a group of beings believe that permanent self exists.


#11 Goodie

Goodie

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Slovenia

Posted 22 April 2016 - 11:22 PM

So, also it can be 2 controversial valid inferential cognitions. For example on a subject: white color of a cloud.

1 - It is subset of a white color, because it is white

2 - It is subset of color of cloud, because it is color of cloud

How do you prove what cognition is valid and what is not valid?

I don't think these two positions contradict each other, I tried to explain why not in the Dura thread here: http://www.dharmalin...pic=1537&p=7667



#12 Sasha

Sasha

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St-Petersburg

Posted 23 April 2016 - 05:08 PM

 

glass of liquid is for humans valid as water, for gods valid as nectar, for pretas valid as pus. This is because for each of these groups it performs a function which is in accordance with their karma. However it would not be valid for preta to think it is nectar, because for preta it does not perform the function of nectar.

Actually, this i called "by public opinion": although public opinion of pretas represents it as pus(it performes a function of pus for them), it is not a pus in absolute sense, That's why this representation is not valid or invalid absolutely.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users