Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:19 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:19 am 
Offline

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:41 pm 
Offline

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 9:43 pm
Posts: 83
Quote:
I believe they are saying external objects are conventionally real.
so do some groups say that things are conventionally empty and conventionally real?


Quote:
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...
Quote:
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:01 am
Posts: 19
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."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:43 am
Posts: 55
Location: San Francisco
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: namoh, Phuntsog Tashi and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group