E-Learning Programs

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?