MVS

In the notes for Lesson 1 are provided five arguments from the MVS for the tri-temporal existence of dharmas (see pages 9-10).

The last states:
"The non-existence of the past and future implies that the present likewise does not exist, since the present is designated in relation to the past and future. The three times not existing, the conditioned would not exist. The conditioned not existing, the unconditioned too would not exist since the latter is established in relation to the former. The conditioned and the unconditioned both not existing, then there would not be any dharma whatsoever, which entails that there is no liberation and nirvāṇa — a serious false view!"

There would seem to be a logical issue with the statement that "the conditioned not existing, the unconditioned to would not exist since the latter is established in relation to the former."

This seems to be inconsistent with the very notion of unconditioned.

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu states, referring to the Milinda-panha, that nibbana is totally uncaused, so it would - by definition - not be dependent on anything.
Ref Samsara Divided by Zero.

"The goal of Buddhist practice, nibbana, is said to be totally uncaused, and right there is a paradox. If the goal is uncaused, how can a path of practice — which is causal by nature — bring it about? This is an ancient question. The Milinda-pañha, a set of dialogues composed near the start of the common era, reports an exchange where King Milinda challenges a monk, Nagasena, with precisely this question. Nagasena replies with an analogy. The path of practice doesn't cause nibbana, he says. It simply takes you there, just as a road to a mountain doesn't cause the mountain to come into being, but simply leads you to where it is."

To go a step further, if we go to the Madhyamaka where samsara = nirvana, this is (as I understand) not a relationship of dependence, but rather identity.

Any other thoughts, quotations or references to refutations to the position identified above in the MVS?

Justin Williams的头像

"The non-existence of the

"The non-existence of the past and future implies that the present likewise does not exist, since the present is designated in relation to the past and future. "

I personally have not designated the present in relation to the past and future. So for me that argument is founded on false logic. Why is there any need to propose an existing future or past, in order to propose an existing present? We experience the present. That experience is enough to base the proposal of an existing present. I do not experience the past. I experience the present in which memories arise, which might lead some people to the assumption that the past exists. But has anyone ever been in the past? I have only ever been in the present.

Regarding the future, I suggest that there is a heterogenous field of probability, which we may designate the 'future', but it is unlike the present. The present has only one possibility - probability has reached 100%. But this I say more based on experience than intellectual formula.