Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Sevenfold Reasoning

Nek777Nek777 Explorer
edited May 2013 in Philosophy
Hi All,

I have been going through Chandrakirti's syllogism - I can follow along fairly well enough, except for the 6th statement - "X" is not merely a collection of its parts. If I were to substitute "self" in for "X", OK - I think I can understand that, in developing the cognition of inherent existence, when someone is asked "What are you?" They give various labels, e.g., job, parent, student, athlete, etc ... Obviously, none of these seem to come from or are the collection of the parts of mind/body.

However, when something else is substituted for "X" I get a bit confused - Why is it that a cup is not the mere collection of its parts?

In some of the commentaries I have read, they were saying that there is a redundancy here - I understand them to mean, that if we have some valid cognition of the inherently existing cup then it does not make sense to say "cup" as separate from the parts. To me this seems somewhat circular. If someone asks "What is a cup?" we could say that it is some vessel for holding liquids to drink or something along those lines ... so, I am having a bit of difficulty with what the (6) part, any help?

Comments

  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    What is your objective in understanding this? Are you aiming for intellectual understanding, or do you intend to use this meditation to further your practice? (There is some overlap, but it does make a difference in what will be useful to you.)
  • Nek777Nek777 Explorer
    Mostly an intellectual understanding, I suppose. My meditation practice is not far past just some calm abiding, but I have found myself thinking about what it is that is actually being refuted in the Emptiness teachings.
  • Nek777Nek777 Explorer
    Holy smokes - this was moved to advanced ideas? Perhaps that is my issue - over extending myself!
  • Nek777Nek777 Explorer
    Nek777 said:


    In some of the commentaries I have read, they were saying that there is a redundancy here - I understand them to mean, that if we have some valid cognition of the inherently existing cup then it does not make sense to say "cup" as separate from the parts. To me this seems somewhat circular. If someone asks "What is a cup?" we could say that it is some vessel for holding liquids to drink or something along those lines ... so, I am having a bit of difficulty with what the (6) part, any help?

    I apologize if this is overly burdensome, and it is coming off as more of a personal blog than a post in a forum; however, I have been thinking about this a bit more.

    I think I can get away from the circular reasoning problem, in that there are cups in a multitude of forms - all that have differing parts, e.g., cups with handles and cups without handles. Yet, I still observe a cup, whether there is a handle or not - as such, a cup can not be just the mere collection of its parts.
Sign In or Register to comment.