Reasons for Conventional Reality

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:13 am

Namdrol wrote:Madhyamakas do not have views.
N


Ok, lets approach it this way: since Madhyamikas make all sorts of statements about the nature of reality (dependent origination, emptiness, etc), then, for you, a "view" is not a statement about the nature of reality. What is a "view" to you then?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby conebeckham » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:15 am

Man, this is funny.
Pransaga means "consequence." The basis of Prasangikas is that they show that any sort of "positive statement" with regard to existence--even a statement like "Emptiness is the Absolute"--lead to untenable consequences. Prasangikas, including the original Madhyamikas--Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc.--make no statements, therefore they avoid consequences. Thus, No view.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby ground » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:20 am

Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby conebeckham » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:34 am

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Here's the thing, and apologies to Astus, again.......it strikes me that those who assert Tsong Khapa's view, here on Dharma Wheel, as the final position are not familiar with the positions of Gorampa, Pawo Rinpoche, Karmapa Mikyo Dorje, etc.
However, those of us who question various points of Tsong Khapa's view ARE familiar with his positions--it's fairly hard not to be, if one has been studying the Dharma for more than a decade or so, as Tsong Khapa's position was the ONLY Indo-Tibetan interpretation you could find until fairly recently--or nearly so.


I'm familiar with Gorampa's position, and frankly, it's not very sophisticated compared with Tsongkhapa's view.


Sophisticated systems are not necessarily "better."

Tsongkhapafan wrote:'All conventional truths are objects of deluded minds' is a pretty crude and wrong statement as it conflates conventional existence with inherent existence, but the point is that conventional truths are not established by the mind of self-grasping ignorance, they are established by valid cognizers such as valid eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mental consciousnesses as explained by Dharmakirti. They are established by valid minds, and then subsequently incorrectly conceived to exist inherently by the mind of self-grasping. It's only the perception and conception of phenomena being inherently existent that's deluded, not the perception of phenomena per se, unless they are non-existents such as seeing a face in a mirror as a real face, seeing a mirage as water, and so forth.


All perception is, ipso facto, part of the continua sentient beings. Tsong Khapa was trying to synthesize pramana with Madhyamika--something neither Nagarjuna nor Chandrakirti did. Phenomena are perceived solely by sentient beings, not by Buddhas.

Tsongkhapafan wrote:Gorampa is unable to distinguish between phenomena that exist as valid karmic appearances to mind and the appearance and conception of those phenomena as inherently existent as incorrectly projected by the mind of self-grasping, and thus he falls into the extreme of non-existence by denying the validity of conventional truths, which is a wrong view.
You do not understand the two truths, as they are elucidated by Nagarjuna and his followers.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby ground » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:43 am

'Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
the sage in villages creates no intimacies.
Rid of sensual passions, free
from yearning,
he wouldn't engage with people
in quarrelsome debate
.'

...
"And how does one not engage with people in quarrelsome debate? There is the case where a certain person is not a fomenter of this kind of debate: 'You understand this doctrine & discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine & discipline. How could you understand this doctrine & discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. I'm being consistent. You're not. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine, or extricate yourself if you can!' This is how one does not engage with people in quarrelsome debate.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:43 am

conebeckham wrote:Man, this is funny.
Pransaga means "consequence." The basis of Prasangikas is that they show that any sort of "positive statement" with regard to existence--even a statement like "Emptiness is the Absolute"--lead to untenable consequences. Prasangikas, including the original Madhyamikas--Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc.--make no statements, therefore they avoid consequences. Thus, No view.


they "make no statements"????? I see what you mean about being funny! seriously, though, you might want to actually look at a Madhyamaka text sometime instead of just repeating Tibetan knee-jerk responses.

BTW starting a sentence with "Prasangikas, including the original Madhyamikas.." is wrong in so many ways...
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:47 am

TMingyur wrote:
'Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
the sage in villages creates no intimacies.
Rid of sensual passions, free
from yearning,
he wouldn't engage with people
in quarrelsome debate
.'

...
"And how does one not engage with people in quarrelsome debate? There is the case where a certain person is not a fomenter of this kind of debate: 'You understand this doctrine & discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine & discipline. How could you understand this doctrine & discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. I'm being consistent. You're not. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine, or extricate yourself if you can!' This is how one does not engage with people in quarrelsome debate.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


hey, this is the TIBETAN forum. In case you aren't aware, in the Tibetan tradition, we LOVE debate, in fact its institutionalized in major monasteries. And nowhere is debate more fun than in Madhyamaka! Have you ever seen the invective that major Tibetan scholars hurl at each other while having fun discussing the uttermost fine points of Madhymaka? you ignorant goat-herder!
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Sherab » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:50 am

Astus wrote:Madhyamaka and other Buddhist thoughts have sophisticated and detailed methods to prove ultimate reality. What about establishing the correct view of conventional reality? Are there lists of arguments? Is it possible to logically argue for the Buddhist view of conventional reality?

Here's how I see it:

Buddhist view of conventional reality is the same as the ordinary man's view of conventional reality. It is what is generally accepted by ordinary people. Why? How can there be any other type of conventional reality given the meaning of convention.

Things like the five elements, skandhas etc are conventional reality in the past in India. Given the progress in science, no one who has undergone a "modern" education would really hold that fire is an element or water is an element and so forth. So conventional reality changes with time.

So is there a need to establish a correct view of conventional reality, Buddhist or otherwise? No, conventional reality is what is generally agreed upon i.e. the convention. It is accepted as such without proof. It is accepted as such because it is what is commonly accepted.

What happens if you try to talk to a modern man of science using conventions prevalent at the time of the Buddha, using terms like the five elements as if they are the current convention? The man will probably think that you are caught in a time warp, and rightly so.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby ground » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:50 am

gad rgyangs wrote:hey, this is the TIBETAN forum.

No this is the "Mahayana Buddhism" forum.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:52 am

TMingyur wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:hey, this is the TIBETAN forum.

No this is the "Mahayana Buddhism" forum.

Kind regards


oops, sorry, but in any case it ain't the Theravada forum...
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Virgo » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:53 am

Nvm.

Kevin
Last edited by Virgo on Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby ground » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:54 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:hey, this is the TIBETAN forum.

No this is the "Mahayana Buddhism" forum.

Kind regards


oops, sorry, but in any case it ain't the Theravada forum...


To my knowledge the Mahayana does not reject the words of the Buddha. There may be particular Mahayana sects that do so, but not the Mahayana in general.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:55 am

TMingyur wrote:
To my knowledge the Mahayana does not reject the words of the Buddha. There may be particular Mahayana sects that do so, but not the Mahayana in general.

Kind regards


how do you know what are the words of the Buddha?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby ground » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:57 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
To my knowledge the Mahayana does not reject the words of the Buddha. There may be particular Mahayana sects that do so, but not the Mahayana in general.

Kind regards


how do you know what are the words of the Buddha?


Through the kindness of teachers.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:01 am

TMingyur wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
To my knowledge the Mahayana does not reject the words of the Buddha. There may be particular Mahayana sects that do so, but not the Mahayana in general.

Kind regards


how do you know what are the words of the Buddha?


Through the kindness of teachers.

Kind regards


the only way to repay their kindness is by commitment to a scrupulous and uncompromising search for truth.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby ground » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:12 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
how do you know what are the words of the Buddha?


Through the kindness of teachers.

Kind regards


the only way to repay their kindness is by commitment to a scrupulous and uncompromising search for truth.


Yes. And for that purpose the advice given by the Buddha may be very helpful.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:16 am

TMingyur wrote:
Yes. And for that purpose the advice given by the Buddha may be very helpful.

Kind regards


....if you can figure out what that might have been.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Acchantika » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:22 am

gad rgyangs wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Prasangikas, including the original Madhyamikas--Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, etc.--make no statements, therefore they avoid consequences. Thus, No view.


they "make no statements"????? I see what you mean about being funny! seriously, though, you might want to actually look at a Madhyamaka text sometime instead of just repeating Tibetan knee-jerk responses.


This

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/assertion/

and perhaps this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-higher-order/

may be helpful to understand the kinds of statements I believe are being referred to.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:38 am

Acchantika wrote:This

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/assertion/

and perhaps this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-higher-order/

may be helpful to understand the kinds of statements I believe are being referred to.


Ok, according to the first page you link to, it says "An assertion is a speech act in which something is claimed to hold...in an assertion it is asserted that so-and-so"

MMK 24.19 reads:

"There does not exist anything
That is not dependently arisen.
Therefore there does not exist anything
That is not empty."

By the definition, is this an assertion or not?

MMK 24.40:

"Whoever sees dependent arising
Also sees suffering,
And its origin,
And its cessation, as well as the path."

assertion?

MMK 25:19

"Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit
Different from nirvana.
Nirvana is not the slightest bit
Different from cyclic existence."

assertion?
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Jnana » Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:01 am

gad rgyangs wrote:....if you can figure out what that might have been.

This isn't the dharma free-for-all sub-forum either. There's no need for arguing this line of skepticism in this thread in this sub-forum.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

>