viniketa wrote:Thank you for your reply, DarwidHalim. Your post made my point for me. Just as did you, Dharmakīrti used the literary device of a supposed opponent to make points for refutation.
Up to this point, you should remember that although Dharmakirti make a point for refutation, but after the refutation, he made a view. Prasangika will never do that. He will reject your statement, and let the thing open. Prasangika will not counter over with his view.
So, there is a very substantial difference here.
Relative perception (form, sound, touch, etc.) is unreal. However, the natural state of sights and sounds are within the aspect of primordial wisdom. Therefore, they are real. There is no contradiction between relative and ultimate truth.
Ultimate and relative truth has no contradiction if we really know how to blend them. If we don't know, it will contradict each other. Cittamantra has a view that even ultimate reality is just mind and this is their ultimate truth. And to Prasangika this is a contradiction.
Of course, each school will claim that their view doesn't have a contradiction between relative and ultimate truth. Cittamantra claim like that, Prasangika also claim like that.
Then, we as an outsider, we need to learn all of them and with our intelligent, we can see which one is true. How Prasangika refute the stand of Cittamantra. If after you see, it makes sense, then you can adopt, if not then you will not adopt.
It is important here that we have to study all views, because each view has its strength power to remove your ignorant from their unique point of view, and you will see their weakness as well.
You can't quantify ultimate reality.
Yes, that is true, ultimate cannot be quantified. But, ironically, if you study the views from different schools, somehow this ultimate is quantified. If you just see one school, you will see they don't quantify. But when you learn how other school reject the stand of others with their reasoning, then you can see.