emptiness = interdependence?

[Adamantine]

I thought the horn of a hare was only a metaphor for something totally fictional that we mistakenly believe in. What is the origin of that term, anyway? Why a hare? Is there significance?

[Pema Rigdzin]

I thought the horn of a hare was only a metaphor for something totally fictional that we mistakenly believe in. What is the origin of that term, anyway? Why a hare? Is there significance?

My understanding is that "the horns of a hare" is an example of something that cannot be found even on the conventional level. (I've always wanted to show a monk or lama debator this picture of a "jackelope" that I have, during a discussion of this to get his reaction haha.) Anyway, another example used often is "the son of a barren woman." Neither of these things can be found even conventionally because the causes and conditions for them are lacking.

[Sherab]

Ah ... "a pointer to the meaning". Like e.g. "horn of a hare" which is a mere thought and points to the meaning. So in case of "horn of a hare" it is the latter that is important in communication whereas the former is relevant only if one clings to the words without understanding what the words meant. Right?

Kind regards

Yes, if you understand what is meant by "horn of a hare". If not, you are merely clinging to the thought of "horn of a hare".

[muni]

Things-mind has no inherent existence. If things appaer by interdependence and so by countless causes in elaborated/complicated relationships, than the two truths relative and ultimate are in fact one truth. No separation.

The arsing mirage of interdependence and the emptiness devoid of assumptions. There is no difference in nonduality when the appaerance and ultimate nature are so seen.

Nature is no quality like expressed in concepts at all. Still about nature of mind are there the so called innate qualities of mind.These aren't consciously created.

[muni]

One who sees the infallible cause and effect
Of all phenomena in cyclic existence and peace
and destroys all focuses of apprehension
Has entered onto the path which pleases the Buddha.

Appearances are infallible dependent arising
And emptiness is the understanding that is free of assertions
As long as these two are seen as distinct
You have not yet the intent of the Buddha

When these two realizations are simultaneous
Where from the mere insight of infallible dependent origination
Concurrently destroys all modes of grasping through definite discernment
At that time the analysis of the profound view is perfected

Furthermore appearances refute the extreme of existence
Emptiness refutes the extreme of non existence
When you understand that emptiness arsises in the form of cause and effect
You are not captived by the view of extremes.
By Tsongkhapa.

[Malcolm]

Actually this means the "ultimate nature of all things" is a mere thought. I think that's the point if one harbors the thought "ultimate nature of all things".

Kind regards

Well, no -- actually Candarkirti defines a truth as an _object_ of a cognition. [/quote]
Well, yes ... however one may share his view or not.

I have just picked this sentence out of the context with which you might have referred to Candrakirti's view exclusively (without wanting to assert that yourself).

[/quote]

The point is whether the cognition is deluded or undeluded in a definitive sense. The object of an undeluded cognition is an ultimate truth. The emphasis lays on the cognition apprehending the object, not the object. But since there cannot be a cognition at all sans an object, it is important to include an object in the formulation of how a truth is defined.

I select Chandrakirti for convenience since he is generally regarded as the authoritative commentarial voice concerning Nagarjuna's corpus of Madhyamaka works.

If we were talking about the two truths in other systems, for example, Sarvastivada, I would cite Vasuybandhu.

[gregkavarnos]

The object of an undeluded cognition is an ultimate truth

'Scuse my ignorance but wouldn't that then imply that all objects of an undeluded cognition are expressions of ultimate truth? ie All objects per se? I cannot imagine an enlightened being having an instance of deluded cognition in regards to any type of object.

[Malcolm]

The object of an undeluded cognition is an ultimate truth

'Scuse my ignorance but wouldn't that then imply that all objects of an undeluded cognition are expressions of ultimate truth? ie All objects per se? I cannot imagine an enlightened being having an instance of deluded cognition in regards to any type of object.

It means that all objects of undeluded cognitions are ultimate truths.

For example, a bodhisattva on the paths and stages has undeluded cognition in equipoise, but deluded cognition in post-equipoise; though that deluded cognition is qualitatively different than an unawakened person's in terms of intensity.

Buddhas only undeluded cognitions.

[gregkavarnos]

So, for example, if an undeluded cogntion comes to the conclusion that black is white then that means it is an ultimate truth?

[Malcolm]

So, for example, if an undeluded cogntion comes to the conclusion that black is white then that means it is an ultimate truth?

Candra defines two natures for every object, one relative, one ultimate. Undeluded cognitions are predicted on seeing the ultimate nature of a given object.

Black and white are relative aspects.
In other words, all cognitions of relative truths, even if conventionally true, are, from a Madhyamaka perspective, deluded.

[Rael]

So, for example, if an undeluded cogntion comes to the conclusion that black is white then that means it is an ultimate truth?

Candra defines two natures for every object, one relative, one ultimate. Undeluded cognitions are predicted on seeing the ultimate nature of a given object.

Black and white are relative aspects.
In other words, all cognitions of relative truths, even if conventionally true, are, from a Madhyamaka perspective, deluded.

so like your saying basically cognating is a Samsaric event...

[Malcolm]

so like your saying basically cognating is a Samsaric event...

Yes, basically, that is what Nagarjuna, etc. is saying.

[Rael]

so like your saying basically cognating is a Samsaric event...

Yes, basically, that is what Nagarjuna, etc. is saying.

thanks ....if you knew how many times i had to read what you wrote in order to post that....


and you only like me have a grade nine education...

well you have done well....


i appreciate your form Namdrol...it forces me to use me noodle....

and you were right....it's no excuse i should try harder.....

if you only knew how many times in each sentence Google Chrome corrects stuff for me....

hey ..i think i'm going to get one of these for me wife to give me more spare time for you guys

[Malcolm]

so like your saying basically cognating is a Samsaric event...

Yes, basically, that is what Nagarjuna, etc. is saying.

thanks ....if you knew how many times i had to read what you wrote in order to post that....


and you only like me have a grade nine education...

well you have done well....


i appreciate your form Namdrol...it forces me to use me noodle....

and you were right....it's no excuse i should try harder.....

if you only knew how many times in each sentence Google Chrome corrects stuff for me....

hey ..i think i'm going to get one of these for me wife to give me more spare time for you guys

My sentence would have been clearer had i written:

"In other words, from a Madhyamaka perspective all cognitions of relative truths are deluded even if they are conventionally true."

[ground]

Ah ... "a pointer to the meaning". Like e.g. "horn of a hare" which is a mere thought and points to the meaning. So in case of "horn of a hare" it is the latter that is important in communication whereas the former is relevant only if one clings to the words without understanding what the words meant. Right?

Yes, if you understand what is meant by "horn of a hare". If not, you are merely clinging to the thought of "horn of a hare".

It was meant ironic. What I wanted to say is that "ultimate nature of all things" is mere fiction, fantasy like "horn of a hare".

Kind regards

[Josef]

It was meant ironic. What I wanted to say is that "ultimate nature of all things" is mere fiction, fantasy like "horn of a hare".

Kind regards

In what way?

[ground]

In that you can think the terms that you like when there is no direct experiential correlate. Just as it pleases. You can think "God", "Buddha nature", "ultimate nature of all things", "emptiness" as you like

Kind regards

[Josef]

In that you can think the terms that you like when there is no direct experiential correlate. Just as it pleases. You can think "God", "Buddha nature", "ultimate nature of all things", "emptiness" as you like

Kind regards

Of course you can think and label descriptions of the ultimate truth as you wish, but that doesnt make the ultimate truth a "mere fiction".
Views and other conceptual ideas about the ultimate truth are conventional but this has no impact whatsoever on the ultimate truth.

[Malcolm]

]

hey ..i think i'm going to get one of these for me wife to give me more spare time for you guys

My sentence would have been clearer had i written:

"In other words, from a Madhyamaka perspective all cognitions of relative truths are deluded even if they are conventionally true."[/quote]

I lied, a little bit.

I dropped out of school when I was 15, more or less.

But I did two years of non-credit coursework at Harvard Extension (night school) between 1986-1988, focusing on writing, history and religion. I then rejected pursuit of more academic Buddhist education because I wanted a more traditional approach.

This is what I meant by "adult improvement". I was 24 when I took these courses.

Now, of course, I am an acharya and a doctor of Tibetan Medicine -- all in all about 11 years of work all together. 6 Years of Buddhist education including a three year retreat, five years of education to obtain my degree in Tibetan medicine. I have been studying Buddhism now in one way or another for 25 years.

[gregkavarnos]

Of course you can think and label descriptions of the ultimate truth as you wish, but that doesnt make the ultimate truth a "mere fiction".
Views and other conceptual ideas about the ultimate truth are conventional but this has no impact whatsoever on the ultimate truth.

My ignorance cannot corrupt ultimate truth, it can only corrupt my perception of it!