Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums

Sasha

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sasha


  1. Here we can see different relations between subject, predicate and reason in 2 cases:

     

    1)    Reason is not established (rtags ma grub)

    A: Sound is impermanent because it is made

    B: Reason is not established (rtags ma grub) [i.e. sound is not made]

    A: Sound is made because it is arisen from causes and conditions

     

    In "rtags ma grub" case we challenge the relations between subject and reason. Opponent says that reason is irrelevant to subject. In further debate we should put that reason to the place of predicate and have to find another reason.

     

     

    2)    No pervasion (ma khyab)

    A: Sound is impermanent because it is made

    B: There is no pervasion (ma khyab) [i.e. not everything which is made is impermanent]

    A: There is pervasion (khyab pa yod par thal). Impermanent and made are mutually inclusive - or synonymous (don gcig).

     

    In "ma khyab" case we challenge the relations between predicate and reason. Reason have to be either a subset of predicate or mutually inclusive with predicate, and in the case of negation reason and predicate should be mutually exclusive.


  2. A : If something is round it is red.


    B: Color of  white egg  (chos can). It is red because it is round (yin par thal). You have to accept pervasion (khyab pa khas)?


    A: The reason is not established (ma grub)  - it means you have to prove that "Color of  white egg is round"


     


    ...


     


    B: Color of  white egg  (chos can) is white  because it is is one with Color of  White egg  


    A: The reason is not established (ma grub) -  it means you have to prove that "Color of  white egg is one with Color of  White egg"


  3. Dinara, it’s not correct dispute. You can say for example:

     

    Someone says (kha cig na re). A : If something is round it has a color

    B: Transparent round crystal (chos can). It has a color because it is round(yin par thal). You have to accept pervasion(khyab pa khas).

    A: The reason is not established (ma grub)

    B: Transparent round crystal (chos can). It is round(yin par thal). Because transparent round crystal is one with itself(yin pai phyir).

     

    Then the debate should go as follows:

    B: If you agree with the root statement(rtsa bar ‘dod na)…  you can train and write what is next J


  4. No, I mean, I understand this - Geshela also expressed this idea of mixed and non-mixed colors. But it is tricky. Because if we would follow the text we would not be able to find that colors of cloud are devided into 2 groups: only colors of clouds which are mixed colors and only colors of clouds which are non-mixed colors. If we would find this - okay, I agree. But according to the text - that doesn't follow. I think that's why Geshela stopped the debate and asked: what is your personal rang lug?


  5.  

    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.


  6. So, we have 2 controversial conclusions:

     

    I) White color of a cloud

    It is subset(or member) of a white color

    Because it is white

     

    II) White color of a cloud

    It is subset(or member) of color of cloud

    Because it is color of cloud

     

    Both are valid (it is to the question of validness)


  7. 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?


  8. 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?


  9. 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? 


  10. One more variant could be: although the reason is established: true that a color of a white cloud is a subset of primary white color(by the way – I’m not sure what should we say in this situation: “rtag ma grub” or “grub”, because from one side it is true statement but from another side – no relations with predicate), but there is no pervasion (ma khyab) - color of a cloud is not a subset of primary white color because color of a cloud and color of a white cloud have 4 possibilities(mu shi):

    1.    Color of a white cloud

    2.    Color of a grey cloud

    3.    Color of a white conch shell

    4.    Color of a green grass


  11. So, still there is no pervasion(ma khyab). Although the reason is established (grub): color of a white conch shell is not one(gcig) with primary color white. But the color of a white conch shell and white color have 3 possibilities(mu sum).

    Consider the subject, the primary colors (subject, chos can). There are not more than four (predicate, gsal ba). Because a color of a white conch shell is a subset of the set: white color.


  12. Right, they are mu sum(three possibilities): 

    1. There is a color of a white conch shell which is a root white color;

    2. There is a color of a white paper which is a root white color, but not a color of a white conch shell.

    3. There is green grass - which is not a root white color, not color of a white conch shell  


  13. 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?


  14. And also in order to remind what is mutually inclusive - or synonymous (don gcig):

    When there are 8 doors of pervasion. For example: [smth which is] made and [smth which is] impermanent:

    1. if there is [smth which is] made - there is [smth which is] impermanent.

    2. if there is [smth which is] impermanent - there is [smth which is] made.

    3. if there is no [smth which is] made - there is no [smth which is] impermanent.

    4. if there is no [smth which is] impermanent - there is no [smth which is] made.

    5. if smth has [smth which is] made - it has [smth which is] impermanent.

    6. if smth has [smth which is] impermanent - it has [smth which is] made.

    7. if smth has no [smth which is] made - it has no [smth which is] impermanent.

    8. if smth has no [smth which is] impermanent - it has no [smth which is] made.


  15. They are mutually inclusive - or synonymous (don gcig).

    Example of three possibilities (mu sum) - apple and fruit. 1 possibility: there is a fruit which is an apple, possibilitythere is a fruit which is not an apple; 3 possibility: there is smth which is not a fruit and not an apple.

    Example of four possibilities (mu shi) - table and wood. possibility: there is a wooden table(smth which is a table and a wood), possibilitythere is a plastic table(smth which is a table but not a wood); 3 possibility: wooden chair(smth whis is not a table, but is a wood); 4 possibility: plastic chair(smth which is not a table and not a wood)


  16. Tere is no pervasion(ma khyab). Although the reason is established (grub): color of a white conch shell is not one(gcig) with primary color white. But the color of a white conch shell and white color are mutually inclusive(don gcig).

×
×
  • Create New...