kind of specialist question [about realism].

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

kind of specialist question [about realism].

Postby klqv » Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:19 am

i'm a little lost. ge-luk says that there are external objects, despite i assume cause being conceptually constructed. how are they able to say this, because i thought the standard template was that if cause is conceptually constructed then caused things are?


thanks :) :)
klqv
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: kind of specialist question [about realism].

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:31 pm

klqv wrote:i'm a little lost. ge-luk says that there are external objects, despite i assume cause being conceptually constructed. how are they able to say this, because i thought the standard template was that if cause is conceptually constructed then caused things are?


thanks :) :)


Can you re state that question? I am not sure what you are asking.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: kind of specialist question [about realism].

Postby deepbluehum » Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:41 pm

I believe they are saying external objects are conventionally real.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: kind of specialist question [about realism].

Postby klqv » Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:37 am

I believe they are saying external objects are conventionally real.
so do some groups say that things are conventionally empty and conventionally real?


I am not sure what you are asking
i was asking how ge-luk can be realists about objects if they think they are conceptually constructed.


and conceptual construction seems to be the meaning of emptiness...
as Nāgārjuna set out to show, since the causal relation does not exist from its own side, is conceptually constructed, and therefore empty, each causally related object must be so constructed and therefore empty in the most profound sense of being conceptually constructed.



i think that makes sense! i think that far too much of the English language literature is appalling :tantrum: :tantrum:
klqv
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:43 pm

Re: kind of specialist question [about realism].

Postby Sergei » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:11 am

This is a huge subject, which I barely understand any of. But you know who does? Georges Dreyfuss, who writes about this in his book "Recognizing Reality."
Sergei
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:01 am

Re: kind of specialist question [about realism].

Postby kerby » Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:15 pm

Also, according to the Lam Rim we are to learn things in stages and emptiness isn't a topic that we can just chit-chat about.
This is a very,very, deep subject and you have to do a lot of meditating and studying to grasp it.
In the land encircled by snow mountains
You are the source of all happiness and good;
All powerful Chenrezig, Tenzin Gyatso,
Please remain until samsara ends.
User avatar
kerby
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:43 am
Location: San Francisco


Return to Gelug

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: peterolin and 3 guests

>