kind of specialist question [about realism].

[klqv]

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

[PadmaVonSamba]

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.

[deepbluehum]

I believe they are saying external objects are conventionally real.

[klqv]

I believe they are saying external objects are conventionally real.

so do some groups say that things are conventionally empty and conventionally real?

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...

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

[Sergei]

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."

[kerby]

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.