Reasons for Conventional Reality

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:26 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
which contains all kinds of views about what conventional truth is, what the ultimate and nirvana are. In short, a whole worldview, not to mention all kinds of epistemological beliefs about what is or isn't valid reasoning etc.


All kinds of views? Describe them please and lets see of they are in fact views. For starters, what is a conventional truth according to Nāgārjuna. And why is this a thesis?
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:50 pm

Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
which contains all kinds of views about what conventional truth is, what the ultimate and nirvana are. In short, a whole worldview, not to mention all kinds of epistemological beliefs about what is or isn't valid reasoning etc.


All kinds of views? Describe them please and lets see of they are in fact views. For starters, what is a conventional truth according to Nāgārjuna. And why is this a thesis?


As it says two karikas earlier, conventional truth is worldly truth, that is, consensus reality. It isn't a thesis (neither he nor I said so), because he isn't trying to prove it: he's taking it as a given, which is even worse as it is an unproven belief.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:52 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:
which contains all kinds of views about what conventional truth is, what the ultimate and nirvana are. In short, a whole worldview, not to mention all kinds of epistemological beliefs about what is or isn't valid reasoning etc.


All kinds of views? Describe them please and lets see of they are in fact views. For starters, what is a conventional truth according to Nāgārjuna. And why is this a thesis?


As it says two karikas earlier, conventional truth is worldly truth, that is, consensus reality. It isn't a thesis (neither he nor I said so), because he isn't trying to prove it: he's taking it as a given, which is even worse as it is an unproven belief.


So in other words, he is starting with what the opponenet takes as real, correct?

In this case, how is this a) his beleif b) a philosophical position of his? The answer is, actually, they are not his beleif nor his philosophical position.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby conebeckham » Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:53 pm

Perhaps we need to define what a "view" is.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Astus » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:02 pm

conebeckham wrote:Perhaps we need to define what a "view" is.


Apparently there is a major linguistic chaos generating unclear reactions here.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:03 pm

Namdrol wrote:So in other words, he is starting with what the opponenet takes as real, correct?

In this case, how is this a) his beleif b) a philosophical position of his? The answer is, actually, they are not his beleif nor his philosophical position.

M


He's accepting the validity of the two truths scheme, which (he says) is what Buddhas rely on to teach "truth". He would have to maintain either that he has already demonstrated the validity of this schema through his argumentation earlier in the book, or that he's accepting it on faith since Buddhas rely on it. In either case, its a philosophical position.
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Acchantika » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:04 pm

conebeckham wrote:Perhaps we need to define what a "view" is.


    View or position (Pali diṭṭhi, Sanskrit dṛṣṭi) is a central idea in Buddhism. In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects thought, sensation, and action. Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_(Buddhism)

I personally feel this is a pretty good definition.
...
Acchantika
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:04 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby gad rgyangs » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:10 pm

Acchantika wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Perhaps we need to define what a "view" is.


    View or position (Pali diṭṭhi, Sanskrit dṛṣṭi) is a central idea in Buddhism. In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects thought, sensation, and action. Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_(Buddhism)

I personally feel this is a pretty good definition.


N doesn't say he doesn't have any view (drsti) he says he has no thesis (pratijñā)
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.
User avatar
gad rgyangs
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:19 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Namdrol wrote:So in other words, he is starting with what the opponenet takes as real, correct?

In this case, how is this a) his beleif b) a philosophical position of his? The answer is, actually, they are not his beleif nor his philosophical position.

M


He's accepting the validity of the two truths scheme, which (he says) is what Buddhas rely on to teach "truth". He would have to maintain either that he has already demonstrated the validity of this schema through his argumentation earlier in the book, or that he's accepting it on faith since Buddhas rely on it. In either case, its a philosophical position.


But if he does not accept the validity of conventional truth (he does not) how can you say he is erecting a philosophical position around the two truths?

Remember, he states "Since the Jinas have proclaimed nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not understand the rest is false?"

The two truths, are for Nāgārjuna merely a pragmatic methodology used by Buddhas to lead sentient beings from delusion to non-delusion. But they are not a philosophical system, at least, not for Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. In other words, if anything, the two truths are a pedagogical method, and that is all.

N
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Lhug-Pa » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:21 pm

Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:24 pm

gad rgyangs wrote:
Acchantika wrote:
conebeckham wrote:Perhaps we need to define what a "view" is.


    View or position (Pali diṭṭhi, Sanskrit dṛṣṭi) is a central idea in Buddhism. In Buddhist thought, in contrast with the commonsense understanding, a view is not a simple, abstract collection of propositions, but a charged interpretation of experience which intensely shapes and affects thought, sensation, and action. Having the proper mental attitude toward views is therefore considered an integral part of the Buddhist path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_(Buddhism)

I personally feel this is a pretty good definition.


N doesn't say he doesn't have any view (drsti) he says he has no thesis (pratijñā)


Sure he says he has no views:

gang gis thugs brtse nyer bzung nas/ /lta ba thams cad spang ba'i phyir/ /dam pa'i chos ni ston mdzad pa/ /gau ta ma de la phyag 'tshal lo

"I prostrate to Gotama, who, through his loving mind, taught the sublime Dharma in order to abandon all views".
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Fri Nov 18, 2011 1:44 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:Parikalpita, Paratantra, and Paranishpanna.



The three own natures are irrevelant in any discussion of Madhyamaka.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby deepbluehum » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:00 am

Do you ever get the feeling you are in a room full of smokers discussing the fresh air in Switzerland?
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:17 am

deepbluehum wrote:Do you ever get the feeling you are in a room full of smokers discussing the fresh air in Switzerland?



No, I get the feeling that I am a non-smoker trying to convince smokers that they should breath fresh air.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby deepbluehum » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:20 am

Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Do you ever get the feeling you are in a room full of smokers discussing the fresh air in Switzerland?



No, I get the feeling that I am a non-smoker trying to convince smokers that they should breath fresh air.


I meant except you of course. I'd like to read a good fishin' tale. Know any?
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Malcolm » Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:23 am

deepbluehum wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
deepbluehum wrote:Do you ever get the feeling you are in a room full of smokers discussing the fresh air in Switzerland?



No, I get the feeling that I am a non-smoker trying to convince smokers that they should breath fresh air.


I meant except you of course. I'd like to read a good fishin' tale. Know any?



Old man and the sea?

Moby Dick?
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11948
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Lhug-Pa » Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:07 am

Namdrol wrote:
Lhug-Pa wrote:Parikalpita, Paratantra, and Paranishpanna.



The three own natures are irrevelant in any discussion of Madhyamaka.


Strictly speaking. But when reading the title of this thread and the initial post by its author, we can see that it is not strictly about Madhyamaka; and that the mentioning of the Three Natures could help to answer his questions.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby conebeckham » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:41 am

I like fresh air.
Just sayin'.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2682
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby padma norbu » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:11 am

pretty sure my post was the most awesome one here. sorry you guys missed it. :shrug:
"Use what seems like poison as medicine. We can use our personal suffering as the path to compassion for all beings." Pema Chodron
User avatar
padma norbu
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:10 am

Re: Reasons for Conventional Reality

Postby Sherab » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:37 am

Astus wrote:
Sherab wrote:I thought that agreement between people automatically means that whatever is agreed is "established" for them individually. Method of establishment could be different for each individual but there has to be "establishment" before agreement takes place.


By established I meant a logical system. That is rarely something people care to contemplate.

I don't know about others, but I do try to establish for myself the reasonableness of various aspects of Buddhist teachings (e.g. cause and effect, impermance) and practices (e.g. rationale for yidam visualisation) through logical arguments/reasonings. But these logical arguments/reasonings cannot establish the validity of the teachings or practices.

In addition, the logical arguments/reasonings that I use for myself may not suit others because there are always assumptions upon which an argument/reasoning has to rest upon, and these assumptions may not make sense to or may not be accepted by others.

You may wish to ask yourself, how you yourself come to accept various aspects of Buddhist teachings.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests

>