Conventional & Ultimate Truth

[DarwidHalim]

What is the difference according to you for the conventional truth between Svatrantika Madyamika and Prasangika Madyamika?

Conventional truth:
This is a tree.

How does Svatrantika Madyamika followers view this statement in terms of conventional truth?
How does Prasangika Madyamika followers view this statement in terms of conventional truth.

[wayland]

What is the difference according to you for the conventional truth between Svatrantika Madyamika and Prasangika Madyamika?

Conventional truth:
This is a tree.

As a conventional truth, they both teach that the tree has the properties we would expect it to have. Both posit the tree to be "empty" and the designation to be, therefore conventional. The difference lies in how the two schools present the emptiness of that object.

How does Svatrantika Madyamika followers view this statement in terms of conventional truth?

They claim the basis of existence to be partless particles. This is very similar to modern quantum physics insomuch as there is 'something' findable which works as a basis for the illusion of a substantial object. Emptiness is the realization that objects don't exist in this way at all, whist conventionally they can still perform tasks which we would expect of them.

How does Prasangika Madyamika followers view this statement in terms of conventional truth.

The object performs its function in the manner expected of it but its basis is utterly unfindable upon investigation. As per Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning on the chariot.

[DarwidHalim]

...but its basis is utterly unfindable upon investigation. As per Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning on the chariot.

Since the basis is ALREADY utterly unfindable like what you said, using what basis can you STILL put the conventional truth?

[wayland]

...but its basis is utterly unfindable upon investigation. As per Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning on the chariot.

Since the basis is ALREADY utterly unfindable like what you said, using what basis can you STILL put the conventional truth?

According to the teachings it is only unfindable upon investigation, otherwise it appears inherent, to exist from its own side. If you step in front of a non-inherently existing bus, you'll still feel it.

[DarwidHalim]

Look.

Ultimate truth is beyond words. Ultimate truth is inexpressible.

Like what Shantideva said:
(2)
Relative and ultimate,
These two truths are declared to be.
The ultimate is not the reach within intellect.
For intellect is said to be relative.

Let's take example this body.
A) This body does exist.
B) This body does not exist.

Both are just conventional truth. People think (B) is ultimate truth. This is wrong. Ultimate truth is inexpressible. Since you can express (A) and (B), no matter how you look at it, they are conventional truth, like what Shantideva said.

Conventional truth is not fixed. Conventional truth can vary between places.

For example:
In India,
Conventual truth: Cows are holy animals.

In USA and most part of the world
Conventional truth: Cows are not holly animals.

So, there is no 1 unique answer for conventional truth.

In diamond sutra, Buddha mentioned that
"Subhuti, it is just the same when a disciple speaks of liberating numberless sentient beings. If they have in mind any arbitrary conception of sentient beings or of definite numbers, then they are unworthy of being called a disciple. Subhuti, my teachings reveal that even such a thing as is called a 'disciple' is non-existent. Furthermore, there is really nothing for a disciple to liberate."

If we take a bus and we still have a sense of bus, this is an indication that the emptiness is still a concept. If we realize emptiness, even we take bus, we cannot say this is bus.

When thing doesn't exist, why you still want to say things exist conventionally?
Why you don't say thing also do not exist even conventionally?

Whatever you say, both are just conventional. Remember what Shantideva said, ultimate truth is inexpressible. If you still can express it as an existence or no existence, it is no longer ultimate truth. It is already conventional truth.

If things doesn't exist, say that it doesn't exist. Based on what reason we still have to say things exist, when we know there is no basis at all for us to say it exists.

[Mr. G]

Reminder - Academic Discussion Forum Guidelines:

Please offer your opinion complete with reason and support from academic sources.

[wayland]

Look.

Ultimate truth is beyond words. Ultimate truth is inexpressible.

Well not for a Prasangika. They've got their tenets to back them up and you did ask about them. Please don't shoot the messenger.

Let's take example this body.
A) This body does exist.
B) This body does not exist.

Both are just conventional truth. People think (B) is ultimate truth.

Some ill-informed people think that (B) is an ultimate truth but this is nihilism, not the middle way. This body lacks inherent existence isn't the same as saying it does not exist.

Conventional truth can vary between places.

For example:
In India,
Conventual truth: Cows are holy animals.

In USA and most part of the world
Conventional truth: Cows are not holly animals.

In this example, cultural attitudes are all mixed up with the conventional designation of cow.

there is really nothing for a disciple to liberate.

This is not the view of one caught in Mara's web.

When thing doesn't exist, why you still want to say things exist conventionally?

Prasangikas don't claim that nothing exists, nihilists do.

If things doesn't exist, say that it doesn't exist. Based on what reason we still have to say things exist, when we know there is no basis at all for us to say it exists.

Tenets set out the middle way. They avoid both nihilism and eternalism.

[DarwidHalim]

If we acknowledge even conventionally that things has no intrinsic existence (no basis), how can we still say conventionally things exist?

This is like trying to say "This corner has no color. But it is red".

If this corner has no color, you should say there is no red.

Similarly, if we acknowledge even conventionally that things have no intrinsic, we should say things doesn't exist even conventionally.

If we say things don't exist, but on the other side, we say it exist conventionally, we just create unnecessary problem. In daily life, you will confuse.

Dalai Lama in Practising Wisdom said
".... According to Prasangika-Madyamikas, however, since self-existence, or intrinsic existence, is denied EVEN ON THE CONVENTIONAL LEVEL, ......"



The fight between Svatrantika Madyamika and Prasangika Madyamika is on the conventional truth.

According to Svatrantika, conventional truth is divided into 2: (Relative truth, ultimate truth - Geshe Tashi Tsering, page 115)
1. Real conventional truth
2. Unreal conventional truth.

Things such as tables, chairs, books, are real conventional truth. Why this is said real? Because that is how things appear to the consciousness.

Reflection of face, an illusion created by a magician are unreal conventional truth. Why this is said unreal? Because even a worldly consciousness can understand the are unreal.

This is the problem with Svatrantika. The problem is Real conventional truth. According to Svatrantika, there is something called real in conventional truth. There is a SUBTLE existence there. This is where Chandrakirti step in, and kick all these non-sense.

In contrast, Prasangika Madyamika proponents make no such division. For them ALL conventional truth are UNREAL. Why? Because they are all falsity. THERE IS NO ACTUAL TRUTH IN THE NATURE OF CONVENTIONAL TRUTH.

So, if we take an example about tree.
For Svatrantika Madyamika: Yes, this is INDEED tree. Conventionally, this is real
But for Prasangika: Sorry, THIS IS NOT TREE. Although they say this is tree, deep inside their heart they know this not tree. For them, they always say false things in this samsara. Why? Because for them all conventional are false and unreal.

This is the beauty between Conventional and ultimate truth in Prasangika. They support each other. Although they say this is this or this is that, they know exactly all of them are false and unreal.

Prasangika is very different with Nihilist. The difference is very subtle.

We need to know the meaning of lack of inherent existence.

When we say: This table is empty.
Prasangika means: This table is SIMPLY doesn't have essence or inherent existence. They do not deny the UNEXPLAINABLE appearance.
Nihilist means: This table not only doesn't have inherent existence, but it also doesn't have appearance.

This nihilist is crazy. They are like blind. They have eyes to see appearance, but they deny the appearance.

But, if you look into it, Nihilist and Prasangika are actually very close. The distance between them is actually just "1 second" walk.

For normal people, they have a lot of difficulty in understanding emptiness. Why?

Because they use the meaning of emptiness as understood in daily life.

In daily life, if we say things are empty, it means it COMPLETELY BLANK.

This is not the meaning of emptiness in buddhism.

The meaning of emptiness in buddhism just means PLEASE ONLY NEGATE 1 thing, and that thing is INHERENT EXISTENCE.
If we negate more than that, you are already out of track.

So, Prasangika and Nihilism is completely different. Prasangika prefer to use empty-(unexplainable)-appearence.

In terms of conventional truth, for Prasangika everything is FALSE and UNREAL. So, the conventional truth for Prasangika Madyamika ALWAYS negative.

If Prasangika scholar speak to Prasangika scholar, they will say conventionally cannot be express. Or they can say things don't exist even conventionally. But, if in daily life to normal people, you say this table not exist, they will say you are crazy. So they have no choice to say this is exist, but deep inside their heart, they know they are saying bullshit.

If you know the story of Zen Master Bodhidharma with the Chinese King, it is very interesting.

This chinese king has built so many monastery and good deed. He asked Bodhidharma - how big is my merit?
Bodhidharma replied: THERE IS NO MERIT.
This is conventional truth (according to Bodhidharma). However, since he use that conventional truth to the ignorant king, this king got angry, and dismiss this Bodhidharma.
If Bodhidharma use the tactic of Prasangika Madyamika, like saying Yes, there is merit. The king will not kick him out.

However, since Bodhidharma wanted to show the king the true meaning of Buddha dharma, he has no choice to tell the truth of the truth even conventionally by saying there is no merit.

If you think about it, you will think there is a merit. This is wrong.
In reality, indeed there is no merit. You cannot find even a single dot of entity called merit.

Shantideva mentioned:
(9)
Just as you receive merits, which you consider to be truly existent from making offerings to a Buddha, which you also consider to be truly existent, so we receive ILLUSION-LIKE MERITS from making offering to an ILLUSION-LIKE Buddha.

Illusion is never ever real. Similarly, merit is also never ever real.

By using this fancy word called MERIT, ignorance people who grasp things in their mind, we blindly do something good.
THis is in fact a very good trick to make people do good things.

For Buddha, he does things not for the sake of merit, because he knows there is no such thing called merit, he do it naturally.
For normal people, if no merit, sorry, it is better I sleep.

FOr us, by doing good things, we receive merit such as good life free from problem. This good life we called it merit.
But if you think about it deeply, there is no such thing called good life and bad life. When there is no good life and bad life, where is the function of merit?

I am very impressed with this Zen master, in this link when he said this in the first 2 minutes:


"... Actually this joy and this suffering, they are the same..."

This is another talk by young Kalu Rinpoche when he said about offering.





Compassion is not done for the sake of merit.
Merit action is poisonous and deluded.

As long as we still think there is something called merit, or good, or bad, the understanding of emptiness is just words.

[wayland]

If we acknowledge even conventionally that things has no intrinsic existence (no basis), how can we still say conventionally things exist?

This is like trying to say "This corner has no color. But it is red".

If this corner has no color, you should say there is no red.

Hi Darwid,
The Prasangika don't reject conventional appearance, because it's there and quite obvious. They compare it to a rainbow or magician's illusion, insomuch as it functions as if real but is ultimately unfindable.

Similarly, if we acknowledge even conventionally that things have no intrinsic, we should say things doesn't exist even conventionally.

I see the problem coming from somewhere else. When faced with 'reality' some people will try to quantify it in some way. This means asserting that things exist, don't exist, exist & don't exist, neither exist nor don't exist.

It seems to me personally that this is irrelevant to Buddhist practice but many would disagree with me for a very critical reason. For scholars the correct gnosis of emptiness is predicated upon the intellectual acceptance of tenets deemed correct.

That's why this is only one side of the coin:

The fight between Svatrantika Madyamika and Prasangika Madyamika is on the conventional truth.

Perhaps, but the emptiness realized by Svatrantika is considered of lesser worth that that realized by a Prasangika. This is one of the distinctions between the Hinayana schools and the Mahayana. Realizing that an object does not exist as it appears, but its basis does exist is not the same as realizing an object's lack of inherent existence. The first is incomplete.

That said, we probably agree that there is way more to emptiness than just understanding and accepting someone's tenets.

This is the problem with Svatrantika. The problem is Real conventional truth. According to Svatrantika, there is something called real in conventional truth. There is a SUBTLE existence there.

Absolutely right. Partless particles, which look very much like cutting edge quantum physics to me, so they weren't that stupid after all. The problem comes in trying to reify the data our senses receive.

Prasangika is very different with Nihilist. The difference is very subtle.

Nihilists come in all shapes and sizes (or perhaps not, if they are to be believed).

This nihilist is crazy. They are like blind. They have eyes to see appearance, but they deny the appearance.

Not too sure about that. It looks like an oversimplification to me.

But, if you look into it, Nihilist and Prasangika are actually very close. The distance between them is actually just "1 second" walk.

Like I said, a Prasangika would beg to differ but I guess it comes down to how you define 'nihilist'.

The meaning of emptiness in buddhism just means PLEASE ONLY NEGATE 1 thing, and that thing is INHERENT EXISTENCE.
If we negate more than that, you are already out of track.

Indeed; Form is empty, emptiness is form - doesn't mean there's nothing there.

So, Prasangika and Nihilism is completely different.

That's more like what the Pransangikas would be happy with.

If you know the story of Zen Master Bodhidharma with the Chinese King, it is very interesting.

Merit! Looks like a whole new topic to me.

[sangyey]

Is there a classical way to understand partless particle themeselves?

[DarwidHalim]

Partless particle is absurd.

Partless means no part.
Particle has part.

The first 50% you dismiss the existence.
The last 50% you acknowledge the existence.

We just contradicting ourselves. Paperless particle is then absurd.

Partless particle may sound like "emptiness is form".

But it is absolute different. In emptiness is form, the form has no single dot of identity, the form doesn't those things called weight, temperature, size, and so on. That is because the form has no identity. There is even no impermanence, because impermanence itself is an intellectual identity. Impermanence is one extreme. Permanence is another extreme. In emptiness of emptiness, both are absurd and simply mind creation, which should be realized to be human made creation.

But partless particle for scientist is different. It has weight, it has size. So, you again contradicting yourself.

[wayland]

Partless particle is absurd.

Hey, I didn't think this stuff up. Blame the Svatrantikas.

The first 50% you dismiss the existence.
The last 50% you acknowledge the existence.

We just contradicting ourselves. Paperless particle is then absurd.

Not really, there is a sound basis behind this theory. Svatrantikas figured that everything could be divided up into ever smaller parts and that eventually one would arrive at something which could no longer be divided any further "a partless particle" no less. A basic unit (we call it sub-atomic and some) which is no longer divisible. There is a quantum physics theory known as String Theory which has some interesting stuff on this topic. You may wish to check it out. One can't fault the Svatrantika for this line of reasoning, if modern science is trying to establish the same thing.

Partless particle may sound like "emptiness is form".

It may or may not depending on what you mean.

But it is absolute different. In emptiness is form, the form has no single dot of identity, the form doesn't those things called weight, temperature, size, and so on.

Fair point but don't forget that the Svatrantika were trying to establish an existent basis within the form realm. Emptiness for them does not mean that nothing is there (because it obviously is Duh!). It is emptiness of the object existing in the substantial way it seems to. That's what emptiness was for them. Prasangikas were little more than nihilist space cadets for Svatrantikas.

There is even no impermanence

Perhaps someone should tell Buddha that.

So, you again contradicting yourself.

If you insist.

[Malcolm]

Partless particle is absurd.

Partless means no part.

Partless particles are a Sautranika tenet, not a tenet of Bhavaviveka.

Partless particle have no sides i.e. no top bottom, east, west, etc. They do not adhere to one another as in the building block idea of atoms of the Vaibhaṣika school that have sides, etc., which form matter by adhering to the sides of each other.

This is all basic Abhidharma, and do not really have much to do with Mahdyamaka.

[DarwidHalim]

...Svatrantikas figured that everything could be divided up into ever smaller parts and that eventually one would arrive at something which could no longer be divided any further...

I got what you mean, So actually what you mean by partless particle is actually indivisible particle. This is what we have studied in the school, isn't it? You divide something again and again until at some point you cannot divide it further. That is called atom or electron or megatron or minitron or whatever term you want to use.

This theory itself actually is already cripple.

If you can divide something, how can you stop dividing it?

No matter how small it is, there is always something smaller than the previous.
Below 0.1, you have 0.01.
Below 0.01, you have 0.001
Below 0.001, you have 0.0001.

When you continue, you won't be able to find the end. Even you go to zero, below zero is negative. No end.

So, the statement, I divide something until I cannot divide it again is already cripple.

By the way, the concept of particle only valid for Vaibhasika and Sautrantika. Cittamantra already reject particle. Cittamantra itself is rejected further by Madyamika. Cittamantra say everything is mind, and the existence of mind is rejected by Madyamika.

Regarding impermanence, you may think middle way support impermanence. That is not right.

If middle way is on the side of impermanence, that is no longer middle way. That is called Side Way

Middle way doesn't stand between 2 extremes.
Permanence is 1 extreme.
Impermanence is another extreme, isn't it?

Middle way is also not in between permanence and impermanence.

Middle way is far far far beyond permanence and impermanence.

[Malcolm]

By the way, the concept of particle only valid for Vaibhasika and Sautrantika. Cittamantra already reject particle. Cittamantra itself is rejected further by Madyamika. Cittamantra say everything is mind, and the existence of mind is rejected by Madyamika.

Some Madhyamakas, such as Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, accepted the model of relative truth proposed by the Sautrantikas, but rejected that of Yogacara. Others, such as Santarakṣita, accepted the relative truth proposed by Yogacara but rejected Yogacara presentations of the ultimate.

[Mariusz]

By the way, the concept of particle only valid for Vaibhasika and Sautrantika. Cittamantra already reject particle. Cittamantra itself is rejected further by Madyamika. Cittamantra say everything is mind, and the existence of mind is rejected by Madyamika.

Some Madhyamakas, such as Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, accepted the model of relative truth proposed by the Sautrantikas, but rejected that of Yogacara. Others, such as Santarakṣita, accepted the relative truth proposed by Yogacara but rejected Yogacara presentations of the ultimate.

But some Madyamikas never accept the reference points.

Please consider the following example. Excuse me because of my english :

Take "1" as a reference point and take "0" as a non-reference point.
Take "state 1" as the relative and "state 0" as the ultimate.

Here there are Madhyamikas who always accept the reference points:
if "1" is existed in "state 1" = "1" is not existed in "state 0"
So because of what we locate in "state 1" (the relative), we always need to locate something in "state 0" (the ultimate)
{precisely the one case need to be located}

Here there are Madhyamikas who never accept reference points:
if "1" is not existed in "state 1" = ["1" is not existed in "state 0" = "1" is not existed in "state 1" = "1" is not existed in both "state 0" or "state 1" = "1" is not existed in neither "state 0" nor "state 1"]
So because of what we do not locate in "state 1" (the relative), we never need to locate something in "state 0" (the ultimate)
{there is never need to locate any cases, whatever "1" or the same can be with "0" (non-reference point)}

I know at least Tibetan Madhyamikas (VIII Karmapa, IX Karmapa) who never accept reference points in the relative and in the ultimate. It is fine for me because I'm in Tibetan Buddhism where Tibetan Tantra and Tibetan Madhyamaka is cultivated according to contemporary Tibetan Masters and I don't need pre-tibetan Archaeology according to the speculative "lineage" Moreover, this never locating the reference points works for me with my Dzogchen related practices. Thank you.

Ps. Perhaps I should know the interesting exception by Jigme Lingpa too???

[Mariusz]

Some Madhyamakas, such as Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, accepted the model of relative truth proposed by the Sautrantikas, but rejected that of Yogacara. Others, such as Santarakṣita, accepted the relative truth proposed by Yogacara but rejected Yogacara presentations of the ultimate.

Here there are Madhyamikas who never accept reference points:
if "1" is not existed in "state 1" = ["1" is not existed in "state 0" = "1" is not existed in "state 1" = "1" is not existed in both "state 0" or "state 1" = "1" is not existed in neither "state 0" nor "state 1"]
So because of what we do not locate in "state 1" (the relative), we never need to locate something in "state 0" (the ultimate)
{there is never need to locate any cases, whatever "1" or the same can be with "0" (non-reference point)}

Here I made an error . Should be "never" instead of "do not":

if "1" is not existed in "state 1" = ["1" is not existed in "state 0" = "1" is not existed in "state 1" = "1" is not existed in both "state 0" or "state 1" = "1" is not existed in neither "state 0" nor "state 1"]
So because of what we never locate in "state 1" (the relative), we never need to locate anything in "state 0" (the ultimate)
{there is never need to locate any cases, whatever "1" or the same can be with "0" (non-reference point)}

Are Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, Santarakṣita the Madhyamikas, who did not "never locate reference points"?

[Malcolm]

Are Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, Santarakṣita the Madhyamikas, who did not "never locate reference points"?

You should read them for yourself and find out what they think.

[Mr. G]

Split Topic: Emptiness in Yogacara

[Mariusz]

Are Bhaviveka and Candrakirti, Santarakṣita the Madhyamikas, who did not "never locate reference points"?

You should read them for yourself and find out what they think.

I can not find suitable english books these days. Can you recommend any books which deals directly with what I asked? As far as I know the quotes from Candrakirti, He never located reference points in the Two Truths, but for the purpose of the debate to help others understand Madhyamka He sometimes used suitable reference points as the "antidote, medicine" for them only. To free them "from all reference poits",from clinging to the Two Truths, the freedom "beyond" the seeming=unblurred, unimpaired vision.