Appearances without an underlying reality
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:04 pm
Hi,
I'm new here... I posted this on another forum and got some interesting responses, mostly from Theravadins, along the lines that I was asking the wrong question. On reflection I am still interested in my question so I am posting it here, where folks might be more receptive to Madhyamika generally.
The original post was as follows "I am looking for Madhyamika arguments in defence of the claim that phenomena can appear without having any basis in reality. In his commentary on the Madhyamakavatara, Mipham points out that people may see things which are not there when they have eye disease or are hallucinating. On this basis he says that the fact that phenomena appear is no reason to believe that they reflect any underlying reality. Personally I don't find this very convincing. Can anyone point me towards any other arguments supporting the claim?"
Since then I have come across other phenomena which are presented as examples of perceiving things which have no basis in reality, such as the moon in the water, reflected images generally, and dreams. As I understand it, the point of these examples is that the opponent is bound to agree that the perception does not depend on anything which exists inherently, and will therefore admit that at least some things can appear without any underlying (ultimate) reality. They will have to agree that, in principle, things can appear without their being any underlying reality, and this destroys the basis of their objection.
There seems to be a problem with this approach in that any perception that arises in the world depends on at least some other things in the world - the brain, for one thing - and the opponent is not bound to admit that these lack inherent existence. It seems to me that any example can only work for those who are already convinced that all things lack inherent existence, or in other words that it can only work when it is not needed.
Obviously it is fundamental in Madhyamaka that there is no contradiction between the two truths, but I am finding this proposition difficult to accept at the moment. Is there another angle I can come at this from?
Thanks
JD
I'm new here... I posted this on another forum and got some interesting responses, mostly from Theravadins, along the lines that I was asking the wrong question. On reflection I am still interested in my question so I am posting it here, where folks might be more receptive to Madhyamika generally.
The original post was as follows "I am looking for Madhyamika arguments in defence of the claim that phenomena can appear without having any basis in reality. In his commentary on the Madhyamakavatara, Mipham points out that people may see things which are not there when they have eye disease or are hallucinating. On this basis he says that the fact that phenomena appear is no reason to believe that they reflect any underlying reality. Personally I don't find this very convincing. Can anyone point me towards any other arguments supporting the claim?"
Since then I have come across other phenomena which are presented as examples of perceiving things which have no basis in reality, such as the moon in the water, reflected images generally, and dreams. As I understand it, the point of these examples is that the opponent is bound to agree that the perception does not depend on anything which exists inherently, and will therefore admit that at least some things can appear without any underlying (ultimate) reality. They will have to agree that, in principle, things can appear without their being any underlying reality, and this destroys the basis of their objection.
There seems to be a problem with this approach in that any perception that arises in the world depends on at least some other things in the world - the brain, for one thing - and the opponent is not bound to admit that these lack inherent existence. It seems to me that any example can only work for those who are already convinced that all things lack inherent existence, or in other words that it can only work when it is not needed.
Obviously it is fundamental in Madhyamaka that there is no contradiction between the two truths, but I am finding this proposition difficult to accept at the moment. Is there another angle I can come at this from?
Thanks
JD