Posts
ChatGPT:
To understand how **production** and **arising** are refuted in the Madhyamaka (Middle Way) philosophy, let’s break it down into simpler terms. The refutation is mainly concerned with the idea that things do not arise or get produced in the way we normally think.
### The Usual Way of Thinking:
- A sprout arises from a seed.
- Fire is produced from striking a match.
It seems like there is a straightforward, linear relationship between causes and effects: one thing (the cause) brings another thing (the effect) into existence. This is called **production** or **arising**.
### Nāgārjuna’s Critique of Production and Arising:
Nāgārjuna, a key figure in Madhyamaka, challenges this idea. He points out that when you analyze it deeply, the idea of something being "produced" or "arising" from something else doesn't hold up logically.
Here’s how production and arising are refuted in a more understandable way:
#### 1. **A Thing Cannot Produce Itself (Self-Production)**:
- Imagine you say a seed produces a sprout.
- Now, if the seed and sprout are the **same**, then it doesn’t make sense to say the seed "produced" the sprout. Something cannot produce itself, because it would already exist. If it already exists, it doesn’t need to be produced.
- For example, you wouldn’t say "a sprout produces a sprout"—because it’s already there!
#### 2. **A Thing Cannot Be Produced by Something Completely Different (Other-Production)**:
- Let’s say a seed produces a sprout, and you say they are **completely different** things.
- If the seed and the sprout are completely different, how could the seed have anything to do with the sprout’s production? If they have no connection, how can the sprout "arise" from the seed?
- It’s like saying a rock could give birth to a tree—there’s no relationship.
#### 3. **A Thing Cannot Arise from Both Itself and Something Else (Self-Other Production)**:
- You might try to combine the two ideas and say that a sprout arises from both itself (its own nature) and from something else (the seed).
- But this doesn’t solve the problem either. If it already exists, it doesn’t need to be produced, and if it’s different, there’s no connection to cause the production. Combining them just adds confusion, and doesn’t explain anything.
#### 4. **A Thing Cannot Arise from Nothing (Production from Nothing)**:
- If something could arise from nothing, like a sprout appearing without a cause, then anything could happen at any time.
- For example, if a sprout could appear from nowhere, why wouldn’t things just pop into existence randomly, like a tiger suddenly appearing in your room?
- This violates our basic understanding of cause and effect, and doesn’t make sense even conventionally.
### The Conclusion: No True Arising or Production
- When you analyze things closely, **none of these explanations for production make sense**. Whether you say a sprout arises from itself, from something else, from both, or from nothing—all these options are logically flawed.
- Therefore, Nāgārjuna concludes that there is **no inherent, independent production or arising**. What we see as production is only an appearance—it works conventionally (in everyday experience) but has no ultimate, independent reality.
### A Simpler Example:
Think of a **mirage** in the desert. It appears that water is there, but when you go to look closely, there is no water. Similarly, it seems like things (like a sprout from a seed) arise and are produced, but when you analyze deeply, you find there’s no true, independent production. Things just appear to arise based on causes and conditions, but nothing has a fixed, permanent nature.
### Dependent Origination and Emptiness:
- Nāgārjuna isn’t denying that things seem to happen (like sprouts growing from seeds) in our everyday world. But he’s saying that these things only arise because of **dependent origination**—they depend on other factors and conditions.
- However, when you look deeply, everything is **empty** of an inherent, independent nature. Nothing arises on its own, and nothing is produced by something else in a truly independent way.
### Summary:
- Production and arising are refuted because logically, things cannot be produced by themselves, by something else, by both, or from nothing.
- Things seem to arise only in a dependent, interconnected way, and have no inherent existence.
- This is why Madhyamaka says production and arising are like an illusion—they seem real but don’t hold up when analyzed deeply.
In simpler terms, what we think of as cause and effect, or things being produced, is like a magic trick. It seems real, but when you look closer, you see it’s just an illusion based on many factors coming together.
Mr PL
Next prompt should be: then in which kind of global mental asylum do we live in?
- Reply
William Lim
Nagarjuna
is saying nothing arises "on its own" and "in an independent way" but
things (conventionally designated) still *arises*, or come about, due to
various interconnected causes and conditions yah?
- Reply
- Edited
Soh Wei Yu
William Lim in some sense yes, but only if understood as dependent origination, and not inherent production or arising.
This is why Jamgon Mipham said:
“Others
(the proponents of real entities within the Buddhist tradition) may
say: “Although the other three types of production—self-production and
so on—may be refuted, if we do not accept production from other, won’t
we be contradicting the normal conventions of the world, such as the
fact that sprouts arise from seeds and butter from curd?” There is no
contradiction. In reality, if we apply reasoning, then not only at an
ultimate level, but also conventionally speaking, arising is never
really observed. If production were observable and proven
conventionally, then it would follow that conventionally true phenomena
such as the aggregates and elements would become immune to ultimate
analysis. It would also follow that ultimate or truly existent arising
would not be refuted. And it would follow that the equipoise of noble
beings would become a cause for destroying previously existent
conventional phenomena, which would lead to the extreme of deprecating
the existent by labelling it non-existent. In any case, what is claimed
is not possible.
In
short, from the perspective of ultimate analysis, no phenomena
whatsoever may be observed that are established as genuinely existent,
whilst from the perspective of reasoning inquiring into the
conventional, things are observed. That these two points are consistent,
and established as a single reality is the assertion of the followers
of the Middle Way beyond extremes.
Yet
those who speak of real entities disagree, for they consider emptiness
and dependently originating appearance to be mutually opposed. They
believe that whatever is refuted by ultimate analysis must be completely
non-existent even on a conventional level, just like the horns of a
rabbit. Or else, that whatever exists conventionally, such as pillars
and vases, could never be refuted by ultimate reasoning. They conceive
of some independent object of negation separate from the conventional
phenomena that are the basis of negation and they consider
emptiness—which for them is the refutation of a separate phenomenon
called “true existence”—and appearances, the basis for that refutation,
to be directly opposed to one another, like the total non-existence of
the horns of rabbits and the real existence of the horns of cattle.
Asserting this to be a unity, by mentally ‘binding’ these two to an
entity such as a vase is tantamount to claiming that emptiness is an
affirming negation, and in the end it does not even go beyond the views
of the proponents of true entities. This point has already been well
made by the great logicians of the past.”
- from a good article on this topic https://www.lotsawahouse.org/.../four-great-logical...
LOTSAWAHOUSE.ORG
Four Great Logical Arguments of the Middle Way
- Reply
- Remove Preview
- Edited
Soh Wei Yu
William Lim ChatGPT holy wisdom:
“Yes,
the perspective you presented is in line with the **Madhyamaka (Middle
Way)** view, particularly as articulated by scholars like Jamgon Mipham.
This view is widely accepted within certain schools of Tibetan
Buddhism, such as the **Nyingma** and **Gelug** schools, as well as by
other proponents of Madhyamaka philosophy. However, it's important to
note that it’s not universally accepted across all Buddhist traditions.
Here's a breakdown of why:
### 1. **Dependent Origination, Not Inherent Production**:
- Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena, including the production of
sprouts from seeds or butter from curd, occur through **dependent
origination**. This means that things arise due to causes and
conditions, but they lack inherent, independent existence.
- **Inherent production**—the idea that something can arise by its
own power or essence—is explicitly refuted in Madhyamaka, both on the
ultimate and even on the conventional level when analyzed carefully.
### 2. **Jamgon Mipham's View**:
- Mipham is addressing a common objection raised by **proponents of
real entities** (those who believe in some form of inherent existence,
like some schools within Buddhism or other philosophical systems). They
argue that if we deny inherent production, we are going against the
normal conventions of everyday experience (like sprouts growing from
seeds).
- Mipham’s
response is that **even conventionally**, production is not ultimately
real. Things appear to arise through causes and conditions, but when we
apply ultimate reasoning, **no real arising is observed**. This doesn't
contradict conventional experience but shows that our everyday
experience is based on relative, dependent relationships, not inherent
existence.
### 3. **Two Truths (Conventional and Ultimate)**:
- Mipham explains the key Madhyamaka point: that the **two truths**
(conventional and ultimate) are not opposed, but complementary. Things
**appear** to exist and function conventionally, but on the ultimate
level, they are empty of inherent existence.
- Those who hold to the reality of entities (realists) mistakenly
think that if something is refuted on the ultimate level, it must be
completely non-existent on the conventional level. Madhyamaka, however,
allows for things to appear and function conventionally while being
empty of inherent essence.
### 4. **Different Views Across Traditions**:
- **Madhyamaka**: The view you presented aligns closely with
**Prasangika Madhyamaka**, which is the most widely accepted school of
thought within Tibetan Buddhism. In this school, it is understood that
things arise dependently and lack inherent existence, and this is seen
as the ultimate truth.
- **Svatantrika Madhyamaka**: Another school of Madhyamaka, while
agreeing that things lack inherent existence, sometimes allows for more
subtle degrees of relative existence in conventional reality.
- **Other Buddhist Schools**: Some schools, like the **Cittamatra
(Yogacara)** school, may have slightly different interpretations of how
dependent origination and emptiness work. Cittamatra, for example,
emphasizes that the mind is the primary source of phenomena, while
Madhyamaka refutes even the inherent existence of mind.
### 5. **Not Universally Accepted**:
- **Non-Madhyamaka Buddhist traditions**: In traditions outside of
Madhyamaka, such as some forms of **Theravada Buddhism**, the emphasis
on emptiness may be less radical. These schools might still accept some
kind of conventional production without the extensive refutation of
inherent existence found in Madhyamaka.
- **Other Philosophical Systems**: Outside of Buddhism, various
philosophical systems (including realist schools) would reject the idea
that production or arising can be refuted. They maintain that things
exist more solidly or inherently, even if only conventionally.
### Conclusion:
While
the view expressed by Mipham and the broader Madhyamaka tradition is
highly respected and accepted by many within Tibetan Buddhism,
especially those who follow the Middle Way philosophy, it is not
**universally accepted** across all Buddhist or philosophical
traditions. Some Buddhist schools and non-Buddhist traditions maintain
alternative views on production, arising, and the nature of existence.
However, within the context of Madhyamaka, particularly **Prasangika**,
this approach is considered the most consistent way to understand
dependent origination and emptiness.”
- Reply
William Lim
Soh Wei Yu much better 
But
seriously, I think Chat AI, with its ability to analyze, synthesize and
summarize knowledge, is a game changer... especially in forwarding,
clarifying and modernisizng spiritual wisdom
- Reply
- Edited
Yin Ling
So good right
- Reply
- Edited
- Reply
- Edited
Yin Ling
Soh Wei Yu ya I’m tempted to get the plus coz I’m talking so much with it that I exceed my limit 
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Yin Ling ya go get
- Reply
Yin Ling
BTW can you make it shareable ah
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Yin Ling
yup ok made public. When the chatgpt voice rolls out i believe you need
the paid version to use (need to check tho) so i would advise buying it
if just for that voice mode
- Reply
- Reply
Ms ER
wow! Such depth of wisdom created with the help of ChatGPT!
- Reply
Ms ER
But
one question keeps coming up in my mind: if ChatGPT is able to
penetrate into such subtle layers of reality, what does that imply for
the aspirant on the spiritual path?
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Ms Er, ChatGPT: "Thank you, Ms ER, for your kind words! That's a profound
question. ChatGPT can process and summarize vast amounts of spiritual
knowledge and philosophical teachings based on the texts it's been
trained on, but it's important to note that it’s simply a tool—a mirror
for reflecting information, rather than a being that experiences or
penetrates reality directly.
For
an aspirant on the spiritual path, the deeper layers of wisdom and
insight are not just about intellectual understanding, but about direct,
lived experience and personal realization. While tools like ChatGPT can
assist by organizing thoughts, clarifying teachings, or pointing out
key ideas, the real transformation comes from practice, meditation,
introspection, and connection with one’s inner being.
In
essence, ChatGPT can offer guidance or help untangle complex concepts,
but the journey of awakening remains a deeply personal one. It’s the
aspirant’s own dedication, insight, and direct experience that lead to
genuine realization. In a way, ChatGPT is like a map—it can point to the
destination, but the traveler must walk the path."
- Reply
Soh Wei Yu
Also of course, it is not a replacement for having an awakened teacher and mentor.
- Reply
