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...
Ah yes, the actual
masters... not that hodgepodge filth cited prior to this!
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.
And as Nāgārjuna said above: dependent production is not production
. "The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma):
From that which involves no origination, everything originates;
and in that very origination, there is no origination!
The wonder of it!
In it's very enduring, there is no enduring!
The wonder of it!
In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!"
- Guhyagarbha Tantra
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.
That is quite an odd thing to propose!
You say that
'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,
Not rejecting would naturally imply acceptance.
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.
I can accept that!
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
For the sake of communication we accept these conventionalities
while at the same time claiming
There is nothing to accept or reject.
I have no interest in getting rid of the law of the excluded middle, it serves it's purpose where it's applicable (which is most cases). And yes, this subject matter can appear quite paradoxical at times.
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.
Yes it is quite extraordinary! The mind creates countless designations which give rise to countless aspects of experience, yet these aspects are inseparable from the root concepts which create them. When experience is filtered this way it actually appears to take on those attributes, and if we're not privy to the game we will actually think these characteristics are really there. It can no doubt seem confusing and paradoxical. I do not deny that I appear to accept and reject.
Does that really not seem inconsistent to you? If not, I guess I have to ask if you know what the word 'consistent' means.
It certainly appears inconsistent. There is nothing to accept and reject, yet acceptance and rejection appear to happen. Acceptance and rejection are the cornerstone of ignorance and a product of delusion. I still stand by my initial statement.
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.
Seems you two are in the process of working that out right now.
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 words are the conventionalities aren't they? Yes they imply a meaning, point to ideations, notions, etc... not sure if they themselves mean something, although they are commonly accepted to mean something and therefore by default I suppose one would appear to be demonstrably wrong by transgressing said meaning.
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"By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth;
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
Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises.
Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect,
is the state of simplicity."
- Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche
Unless you want to be taken seriously by thinking people. And you do want that, I can tell by your writing.
... so very badly. It's a burning desire like the fires of hell.
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
Yes, that would indeed be common sense, there certainly appears to be levels and gradients of illusion, rights and wrongs and all sorts of designations within avidyā.
so we can see that there are correct, or valid conventional truths (of course ultimately these are falsities, but conventionally, they are valid)"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
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)
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.
However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found -
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.
The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to -
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra
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 400
Incorrect 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.
Chandra's 400 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.
So what are we disagreeing on again?
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.
It certainly 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, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKpnZ7cwWuY
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.....
Ok I'll take it into consideration! Valiant effort in your response by the way!