असत्कार्यवादः शून्यवादिनां बौद्धानाम् मतं वा ?
लोकेश
यथा अस्मिन् वृत्तौ
प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादो नाम हेतौ सति प्रत्ययेषु च सति उत्पादः विद्यते ।
आचार्यः नागार्जुनः वदति यत् द्वयं सत्कार्यवादः पुनः असत्कार्यवादः न युक्तौ यतः स्वभावेन कोपि भावः न जायते येन वयं वदामः यत् सत्कार्यवादः अभवन् वा असत्कार्यवादो वा ।
अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् । अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ॥ १ ॥
यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शिवम् । देशयामास संबुद्धस्तं वन्दे वदतां वरम् ॥ २ ॥
अनुत्पादम् इति प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादस्य विशेषणम् ।उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्व चन के चन ॥ १,०१
तदेवं हेतुप्रत्ययापेक्षं भावानामुत्पादं परिदीपयता भगवता अहेत्वेकहेतुविषमहेतुसंभूतत्वं स्वपरोभयकृतत्वं च भावानां निषिद्धं भवति
अप्रतीत्या नाम अहेतुका ।
एतैः प्रमाणैः सिद्धं स्यात् यत् बौद्धानाम् विशेषतः शून्यवादीनाम् असत्कार्यवाद इति सिद्धान्तो नास्ति किन्तु प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद इत्येव सिद्धान्तो वर्तते ।
Nagaraj Paturi
In the slide , by Sri Karthik Sharma .
You are able to see 1. बौद्धमतम् - असतः सत् जायते
asatah indicates kaarana is asat ; sat jaayate indicates kaarya is sat.
So what is being stated here is not that bauddha position is asatkaarya vaada .
If you come to the point 3 , in the slide ,
you have न्यायवैशेषिकमतम् - सतः असत् जायते
satah indicates kaarana is sat ; asat jaayate indicates kaarya is asat.
So what is being shown here is that asat is kaarya. which when given a name becomes asatkaarya vaada.
So asatkaaryavaada is being shown here as न्यायवैशेषिकमतम्
At 51:17, I translated असतः सत् जायते
as from nonexistence comes existence.
Just as the original Sanskrit statement does not state that Bauddha position is asatkaarya vaada my English translation also does not state that Bauddha position is asatkaarya vaada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now comes the question of whether
बौद्धमतम् - असतः सत् जायते
is a correct representation of bauddha position or not.
shuunyataa is understood as the absence of inherent existence.
There are strands of maadhyamika Buddhism
which take the position that
this absence of inherent existence is the support for phenomenal existence.
असतः सत् जायते may not be an accurate re statement of
'absence of inherent existence is the support for phenomenal existence'
But the whole point here is that
" Sri Karthik Sharma stated that asatkaaryavaada is a Buddhist position "
is not correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
बौद्धमतम् - असतः सत् जायते
which does not mean " asatkaaryavaada is a Buddhist position "
is only a passing statement just in this slide,
never touched again in the talk,
nor important for the talk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you want to say that प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद is a Buddhist position and explain that here,
fine.
But you could do that without bringing your misunderstanding that
Sri Karthik Sharma stated that asatkaaryavaada is a Buddhist position or my translation of Sri Karthik Sharma stated that asatkaaryavaada is a Buddhist position.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/e1173e5a-c84a-4bd2-82c2-f628bf7fef5en%40googlegroups.com.
लोकेश
This is written by Dr. Ragunath Damodar Karmarkar, former Director of BORI.
> is only a passing statement just in this slide,
> never touched again in the talk,
> nor important for the talk.
True, it's not important for the talk. It cited it just as an example.
> But you could do that without bringing your misunderstanding that
> Sri Karthik Sharma stated that asatkaaryavaada is a Buddhist position or my translation of Sri Karthik Sharma stated that asatkaaryavaada is a Buddhist position.
Now, coming to the main topic.
> this absence of inherent existence is the support for phenomenal existence.
I doubt that. माध्यमिका do not agree that phenomena have any existence. So, how can they talk about its support?
Could you specify which strands of maadhyamika Buddhism take this position?
Nagaraj Paturi
" Lacking inherent existency (sic) means that things/objects/phenomena are not set up by themselves. They are set up dependent on other factors''
The answer here from some Lanka quotes Dalai Lama
and his book
Things do exist just not in the way they appear to be existing.
Lacking inherent existency means that things/objects/phenomena are not set up by themselves. They are set up dependent on other factors. In other words they are conditioned.
That can be seen with e.g. a tree. A tree changes during the different seasons. Why does it change? It changes due to being set up dependent on other factors which again is set up dependent on other factors etc. That means that objects are in a constant flux. They do not stay constant or stable.
If a tree where inherent existent it would never change. It would stay green with flowers on it forever. If it truly were inherent existent then it would be uncaused. It would be completely defined by its own nature. Nothing could be removed or added to it since that would change its inherent existent nature. It would be both eternal and indestructible.
If we take a look at samsara the conditioned existence then we see that all physical and mental phenomena are caused by other factors. They are not stand-alone units. That does not mean that they are not real. It just means that they do not exist in the way they appear to be.
The Dalai Lama has written many great sections on Emptiness in his book "How to See Yourself As You Really Are". Here is a short quote on the existence of phenomena. The quote is from chapter 19: "Viewing Yourself As Like an Illusion", p. 187-188:
"A face in a mirror appears to be a face, but this image is not a real face in any way; it is from all viewpoints empty of being a face. Likewise, a magician can conjure up illusions that seem to be certain things, like a person in a box being skewered by a sword, but they are not at all established as those things. Similarly, phenomena such as bodies appear to be established from the objects' own side but are empty of being established that way and always have been.
It is not that phenomena are illusions; rather, they are like illusions. Even if a mirror image of your face is not really your face, the reflection is not utterly nonexistent. Through its appearance you can understand how your actual face looks. Similarly, although persons and things are empty of existing the way they appear to be established in their own right, they are not utterly nonexistent; they can act and be experienced. Therefore, being like an illusion is not the same as appearing to exist but actually not existing, like the horns of a rabbit, which do not exist at all."
Here is another one with the title "Emptiness does not mean Nothingness". The quote is from chapter 5: "Appreciating the Reasoning of Dependent-Arising", p. 71-73:
"There is no question that persons and things exist; the question is how, or in what manner, they exist. When we consider a flower, for instance, and think, "This flower has a nice shape, nice color, and nice texture," it seems as if there is something concrete that possesses these qualities of shape, color, and texture. When we look into these qualities, as well as the parts of the flower, they seem to be qualities or parts of the flower, such as the color of the flower, the shape of the flower, the stem of the flower, and the petals of the flower - as if there is a flower that possesses these qualities or parts.
However, if the flower really exists the way it appears, we should be able to come up with something separate from all of these qualities and parts that is the flower. But we cannot. Such a flower is not found upon analysis, or through other scientific tools, even though previously it seemed so substantial, so findable. Because a flower has effects, it certainly exists, but when we search to find a flower existing in accordance with our ideas about it, that is not at all findable.
Something that truly exists from its own side should become more and more obvious when analyzed - it should be clearly found. But the opposite is the case. Nevertheless, this does not meant hat it does not exist, for it is effective - it creates effects. The fact that it is not found under analysis just indicates that it does not exists the way it appear to our senses and to our thoughts - that is, so concretely established with itself."
I would really recommend reading this book since it has a lot of insights about emptiness. I think sometimes its greatly beneficial to study another buddhists school's take on e.g. Anatta/Emptiness in order to "get it" cooked and prepared in another way. Of course the basic doctrine is the same but when reading about it in other terms and ways of expression that gives variety and nuances on the topic.
On purpose i did not go into the insight-meditational aspect of this profound teaching that emptiness is since you asked for an intellectual opinion. Hope this might be of some help.
Lanka
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/2987e2d4-71cc-45c3-b311-9acfcdb8a0aan%40googlegroups.com.
लोकेश
माध्यमिकमतेन सर्वे धर्मा (phenomenon) न केवलं मायोपमा (like illusion) किन्तु मायात्मका एव सन्ति ।
तन्मृषा मोषधर्म यद्भगवानित्यभाषत ।
सर्वे च मोषधर्माणः संस्कारास्तेन ते मृषा ॥ १ ॥
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
तत् तत् प्राप्य यद् उत्पन्नं नोत्पन्नं तत् स्वभावतः ।
यत् स्वभावेन नोत्पन्नम् उत्पन्नं नाम तत् कथम् ॥ १९
-
What arises, dependent upon this and that, Is not intrinsically created;
How can you call the intrinsically Uncreated, “created?”
हेतुतः सम्भवो यस्य स्थितिर् न प्रत्ययैर् विना ।
विगमः प्रत्ययाभावात् सो ’स्तीत्य् अवगतः कथम् ॥ ३९
-
Whatever originates having a cause,
Does not endure without conditions,
And, without conditions, is destroyed.
How can you understand such things as “existent”?
यदि नास्तीति तत् तोयं गृह्णीयान् मूढ एव सः ॥५५॥
मरीचिप्रतिमं लोकम् एवम् अस्तीति गृह्णतः ।
नास्तीति चापि मोहो ऽयं सति मोहे न मुच्यते ॥५६॥
ते प्रपञ्चात्प्रपञ्चस्तु शून्यतायां निरुध्यते ॥ १८.५ ॥
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/XlzKCXkoXRQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eai2oZ3GOe%2BR5VwfJ9YytoMitErd3RXoJMbyG1tC5zbOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Nagaraj Paturi
Your argument is with the author of the book that I cited. I can not speak for that author.
He is not a member of this group.
So let us close this discussion here since it is not relevant to the Vachaspati Mishra's contribution which is the focus of the talk of Shri Karthik Sharma.
regards and best wishes,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CA%2BksRZccyjftYJu3oiqNgbof_Pb_HA-Sg7aJm%3D8MFXNmRzrcHg%40mail.gmail.com.