products viewed from afar - NISHIO Hirokazu's Scrapbox (Auto-translated from Japanese)

products viewed from afar

I'm gone. I'm not gone. I'm not gone.

I've already left, and I'm not leaving again.

claude.iconThis chapter is a summary of Chapter 2, "Kwan Kwai Lai Pieces" in Buddhist sect originating in the seventh century. The main points of discussion are as follows

1. analyze the relationship between "去" (movement) and "去者" (one who moves)

2. a critical examination of the concept of "leaving" in the three tenses of past, present, and future

3. denies the unity and difference between "go" and "goer"

4. the same logic applies to the analysis of "dwelling" (stationary) and "dweller" (one who is stationary)

5. questioning the reality of the phenomenal world visible to the eye

dragon tree (Dracaena draco) argues that

There is no "gone" in "already gone."

There is no "gone" in "not gone" (not yet gone) either.

There is no independent "going away" in "leaving time" (when one is leaving).

The "leaveer" and the "leaving law" (to leave) are interdependent and do not exist independently

This part here.first and fifteenth days of the ninth lunar month (corresponding to new moon and full moon) ともいうnishio.icon

It is not logically possible for the "leaving" and the "leaving" to be the same or separate.

In conclusion, Ryūju argues that "去", "去者", and "所去処" (place to go) all do not exist as entities, but are interdependent temporary entities (pseudonyms), like illusions. Through this analysis, Ryūju questions the reality of the phenomenal world and develops the idea of emptiness (śūnyatā).

nishio.icon

I'm not saying it's difficult, it's just that the catchy poem at the beginning lacks words because it's a poem, and it bugs me when I try to supplement the missing parts with normal thinking.

AI is correctly fetching and filling in the words, smart.

There is no "去" in "已去" (already gone).

"Not gone" (not yet gone) also does not have "gone"

There is no independent "leaving" even in "leaving time" (when one is leaving)

Here's the important part.

When you leave, you leave.

1. to go away for a reason, 2. to go away for a reason.

claude.icon

If there is a departure at the time of departure, there are two kinds of departure

One is called the time of leaving, and two are called the time of leaving

This part can be explained as follows

If we insist that there is a "going away" (going) at the "going away time" (in the midst of going), then there are two kinds of "going away" out there.

The "time of leaving" itself (the time or state of being gone)

Gone at the time of leaving (the action of going while in the process of going).

Ryuju points out here that the assertion that "there is a ko when there is a ko" contains a logical contradiction. This is because to assert so would unnecessarily duplicate the concept of "going away". This is part of the logic of the Middle View school, which criticizes the substantiation of the concept and argues to show its emptiness.

https://gyazo.com/9274d0843aff34093454a32221652698

Since the gatherer and the left are unparalleled in history (unparallelled) entities, it is strange that "the left exists independently of the gatherer" in the first place, and if they are not independent, then there are two gatherers, which is strange!

nishio.iconWhat is the relationship between the time of departure and the "time of departure and departure of the uniquely different?

claude.iconThe relationship between the time of leaving and the relationship between "the one who leaves and the other who leaves":

The time of leaving (in the midst of going) is considered to be the scene in which the relationship between the gatherer and the leaving becomes manifest. However, the time of leaving itself also follows the principle of "[unparalleled in history (unparallelled):

The leaving time is not completely independent of the gatherer and the leaving (or else we would not know what "time" it is).

However, the time of leaving is not identical to the person leaving or the leaving itself (since the concept of time is different from the act or the actor).

Ryuju's argument attempts to show that these concepts (gatherer, gatherer, and gatetime) are interdependent and do not exist as independent entities. This points to the emptiness (lack of independent selfhood) of all phenomena.

Such analysis demonstrates the limits of everyday cognition and language use and encourages deeper insight into ultimate reality.

So here's what I'm saying.nishio.icon

https://gyazo.com/4320b8c9b56d5ea13fd36e9cfb0dee4e

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/觀去來品 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.