Tom wrote:Actually if you re-read the posts I was the one to explain that for prasangika all minds are valid with regard to their appearing objects
So a book could be labeled a cat, car, or cloud. Why not? There's no inherent nature.
1. Is this understanding of the criticism correct?
2. What is the Prasangika refutation?
Tsongkhapafan wrote:Dependent arising and its implication, emptiness, are the very reason why it's not suitable to label anything as anything.
Users browsing this forum: mikenz66 and 6 guests