A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.
The opposite is an affirming negation such as "That mother has no son", which implies a daughter.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Theism and Western atheism are on the same continuum. Both are realist.
- Thread starter alwayson
- Start date
A nonimplicative negation is a simple negation that implies nothing else.
The opposite is an affirming negation such as "That mother has no son", which implies a daughter.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Indeed, but that does not make me a realist.
My claim is a subjective one. I claim objective reality is unknowable to any embodied being.
It does.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Even if it did that wouldn´t make him an atheist any more than being a bird would make a penguin fly.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Nope.
Yup. :yes:
The duality of subjective/objective reality is in itself realist.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Nope.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
How so?
Do you believe the universe exists?
What characterizes the objective but unknown reality?
PS: Realism, in philosophy, is the common sense view that we cannot know the reality of the universe directly, yet it precedes and exceeds us, trapped here in our world of "mind."
Last edited:
Me Myself
Back to my username
To say what is realist or not you would need to pretend you can know without question what is real.
If you cannot know what is real, then you cannot know who is realist.
maybe it is realist to be an atheist, maybe not, maybe it is realist to be a theist, maybe not.
It would depend on whether does god/s exist or not.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Nagarjuna's Madyamakha philosophy is only half the story. He was simply negating two extreme views. The other half of the story is what is actually real, namely, that found in both Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha philosophy. There is no Buddhist school I can think of that follows Madyamakha exclusively, but I could be wrong. Most Mahayana schools temper it with Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha.
By stating that reality is an illusion is to make a claim, which is something Nagarjuna did not do. But it's not that reality is an illusion, it's that our delusions have tricked us into thinking that reality is something it is not. What is actually real is Buddha-mind/nature. This is the underlying reality, this is what is true reality. The three poisons have us deluded into thinking that what we see, is what is real. But this is not the case. Our minds have been clouded by the three poisons of greed, aversion, and ignorance, because we still think in dualistic ways. The Buddha-nature is what is real, and what underlies all of what we think is real.
By stating that reality is an illusion is to make a claim, which is something Nagarjuna did not do. But it's not that reality is an illusion, it's that our delusions have tricked us into thinking that reality is something it is not. What is actually real is Buddha-mind/nature. This is the underlying reality, this is what is true reality. The three poisons have us deluded into thinking that what we see, is what is real. But this is not the case. Our minds have been clouded by the three poisons of greed, aversion, and ignorance, because we still think in dualistic ways. The Buddha-nature is what is real, and what underlies all of what we think is real.
Tathāgatagarbha Sutras are eternalistic.
There is a reason why Candrakriti, Atisa etc. ignored these texts.
The tantric "Buddha Nature" of Mahamudra of course is fine.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
What does it mean for me to believe in something?
What is the universe?
What is it to exist?
I have views about all of these things but they are all subjective. I believe that for me there is only subjectivity. There is no reality external to oursleves that we can know without ourselves. There is only subjectivity. Everything is relative.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
1. Both Zen and Tibetan masters used both Yogacara and Tathagatagarbha texts. Their philosophy can also be found, in lesser degrees, in Tien Tai, Jodo, Hua-yen, etc. Most Mahayana Buddhists found use for them. They are not exactly eternalistic, instead, they answer a fundamental question that Madyamakha did not: namely, if reality is just an illusion, then what is it we experience with the six senses? Reality cannot be denied, our views of it can.
2. How is the Buddha-nature of Mahamudra different than the Buddha-nature of Tathagatagarbha?
Subjectivity relative to ...what?
Mahamudra is based on a class of literature called tantras.
Tathāgatagarbha Sutras are obviously sutras.
Thats one difference.
In Mahamudra, Buddha Nature is just one of several names applied to the inseparability of clarity and emptiness of the mind, which is a tantric concept.
In the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras, there are some crazy definitions of Buddha Nature as being something only tenth stage bodhisattvas can see.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I understand the difference between the tantras and the sutras. So let me ask you this: do you see a difference between the Buddha-mind of Yogacara and the Buddha-nature of Mahamudra?