asunthatneversets wrote: cloudburst wrote:
So the nature of appearances is the controversy, whether they are illusions, or if something is indeed produced via imputation which can be designated as "like an illusion".
Precisely. Consult Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti to discover whether or not there is production by imputation. Don't join the hotheads who read with a literal eye, look deeper!
....if you believe something is truly produced then I don't see how you can move past that self made limitation, if you feel you can then that is great, but in my eyes it is merely a barrier.
No-one ever said "Truly produced."
I invited you to consult Madhyamaka masters as to whether or not there is dependent or relative production, you clearly did not bother.
That's no problem, I will demonstrate how it is for the benefit of those who read carefully.
Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti all affirm dependent production and reject essential or "true" production. Here are some quotations for those who want to know what the actual masters say...
Buddha says in the Anavatapta-nagaraja-pariprccha sutra... Whatever is produced from conditions is not produced; it is not intrinsically produced.
Whatever depends upon conditions, I consider empty;
One who knows emptiness is diligent.
and in the Lankavatara
...Mahamati, thinking that they are not produced intrinsically, I said
that all phenomena are not produced
in his Sixty Stanzas
, Nagarjuna says The supreme knower of reality
Said that dependent production is not production
and commenting on that Chandrakirti says When you see dependent arising, you do not see things as intrinsically existing. This is becasue the dependently produced is not intrinsically produced, like a reflection.
in the Avatara
Chandrakirti says Because things are not produced
Causelessly, or from causes such as a divine creator,
Or from self, other, or both self and other
They are produced dependently
So. That's done.
They are produced dependently.
asunthatneversets wrote:I like having inconsistencies in my view drawn out... though that has yet to happen in my opinion.
Here is an inconsistency in your view- first of all, let's leave aside that if questioned, you will in all likelihood claim not to have a view, while at the same time talking about your view and its inconsistency or lack thereof.
You say that
asunthatneversets wrote: 'there is nothing to accept or reject' means to reject the appearance of relative laws and so on would be an unnecessary (and futile/foolish) activity.
which means you accept the appearance of relative laws. Even though you want to say that not rejecting does not mean accepting, this is just sophistry, as you do accept that the laws of gravity function. Granted, you accept it conventionally, but as you correctly say, there is no acceptance or rejection, and nothing to accept or reject ultimately, so that's as accepting as acceptance gets.
You want to get rid of the law of the excluded middle, but you still want to give reasons to back up your points and claim that
asunthatneversets wrote: For the sake of communication we accept these conventionalities
while at the same time claiming
asunthatneversets wrote:There is nothing to accept or reject.
So, how's that? There are your own words. "there is nothing to accept or reject" and ".... we accept..." you claim that there is nothing to accept, yet you accept many things. Does that really not seem inconsistent to you? If not, I guess I have to ask if you know what the word 'consistent' means.
By the way, earlier in this thread Malcolm claimed that Madhyamakas reject logic. I challenged that assertion and asked for citations.
None were provided. I suppose one of the freedoms that one enjoys while not accepting or rejecting is that one need not accept that a failure to back up one's claims makes those claims seem a matter of uninformed opinion.
asunthatneversets wrote:For the sake of communication we accept these conventionalities, why you think I reject them I don't understand, you are reading my words and I am typing them, conventional language is obviously being employed to make a point.
it's more than just using
words, to accept conventionalities, though, isn't it?
Valid conventionalities mean
something. If you transgress that meaning, you are demonstrably wrong. The 'position of the world' that Buddha et al say they will stay with is not just any
position that is propounded, but valid
positions. For example, although most believe in a creator god, Madhyamikas reject this, they do not "go with the position of the world" on nonsense, do they? They only do so when the position is unassailable, and is contradicted by neither another worldly cognition or an ultimate one.
Chandrakirti says Unskilled in ultimate and conventional truths you sometimes apply analytical standards inappropriately and destroy the conventional.
Because we are skilled in positing conventional truths, we stay with the world's position and we use it's conventional standards overturn the standards that you set so as to eliminate the category of conventionalities. Like the elders of the world we drive out only you deviate from the traditional standards of the world we do not drive out conventionalities
asunthatneversets wrote: I don't need the clarity of my thinking to improve, it is like a child building a sand castle.
Unless you want to be taken seriously by thinking people. And you do
want that, I can tell by your writing.
If you tuned up your investigation you would see that all is not equally illusory, becasue you would learn to understand and utilize the system of the Madhyamikas
Some dependently arisen things- such as reflections and echoes -
are false and appear to be false even to be ignorant.
Some things -blue and other forms as well as minds, feelings etc.- appear to be true.
The final nature of things does not appear in any way to those who are ignorant.
Therefore that nature and whatever is false even conventionally are not conventional truths
so we can see that there are correct, or valid conventional truths (of course ultimately these are falsities, but conventionally, they are valid)
and some things that are just false. If you think carefully, you will see that this also refutes the notion that things are literally illusions, as Chandrakiti juxtaposes reflections and echoes (two of twelve similes that appear in the sutras including "like an illusion," see Samadhiraja sutra for more....) with forms, feelings, etc, clearly differentiating things that are false conventionally and conventional truths, (which are false from the point of view of the ultimate)
To engage the mind that ascertains without error
The nature of the two truths,
You should supremely establish the good eye
Of the two stainless valid cognitions
We therefore posit that the world knows objects with four valid cognitions
So you should know that Prasangikas do accept valid cogitions (and thus logic, of course!)
Let's look at some of these valid conventions.....
Chandrakriti's commmentary on Aryadeva's 400Incorrect position :
Aryadeva means that compounded phenomena lack production because this analysis refutes all forms of production.
Reply: In that case the production of compounded phenomena would not be like a magicians illusion rather we would make it understood using examples such as the son of a barren woman. Wary of the absurd implication that dependent arisings would not exist we avoid such comparisons. Instead we compare the production of things to a magicians illusion and so forth, examples that do not contradict dependent arising
Here production is likened
to a Magician's illusion. Chandrakirti "compares" the production of things to a magician's illusion. If everything actually were
a magician's illusion, who is the magician? If you say "you are!" or "the mind!" then you make my point for me, as this is obviously metaphor.
commentary What is the meaning of dependent arising? It means the absence of intrinsic existence; it means no intrinsically existent production; it means the arising of effects whose nature is similar to a magicians illusion, a mirage a reflection, a phantom city and emanation or a dream ; it means emptiness and selfless
"Whose nature is similar." Similar. Simile. It's a simile. Things are similar
to a magician's illusion. The illusion is a simile.... things are like
an illusion, like
a water bubble, like
a city of ghosts....
Your bed is not a city of ghosts. Your computer is not a water bubble. Your being schooled by Chandrakirti is not an illusion. It is like an illusion.....
You can understand quotations that say things are
illusions in the same way, sometimes masters drop the qualifier when the meaning has been clearly established by context. Look into it. The Lanakavatara quotation above (...thinking that they are not produced intrinsically, I said that all phenomena are not produced.") is a fine example of this.
asunthatneversets wrote: so striving for the clarity of thought is a futility married to an illusion...
I'm sure you, or at least others, can see how this attitude reflects itself in your thinking.
Why do you think Buddha gave thousands of discourses that were unbelievably precise?
Why did Nagarjuna takes such pains to refute objections?
Why did Chandrakirti comment on these so extensively?
Why did Longchenepa and Jamgon Kongtrul write thousands of pages of text full of intellectual rigor?
It was to clarify, and it is a beautiful thing.
I think many of the things you say may be accepted (while of course not being accepted or rejected) on the dzogchen forum, but in discussions that are explicitly Buddhist, you will be challenged and refuted.
I personally think you have not put much time into studying classical Buddhism. There's not necessarily a fault in that, don't get me wrong, but it leaves your discussion limited.....