Conventional & Ultimate Truth

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby Malcolm » Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:43 pm

Mariusz wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Mariusz wrote: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.



Procure and read Nāgārjuna's Reason Sixty. A somewhat clumsy translation, to be sure, but it has Candrakirti's commentary. Incidentally, Candarkirti's densest treatment of worldly convention seems to be contained in his commentary on the seventy verses on emptiness.

N
Last edited by Malcolm on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10190
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby Mariusz » Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:48 pm

DarwidHalim wrote: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.

"This is a tree" is only a worldly convention form the perspective of worldly beings. However it is correct worldly convention for those beings in contrast to false worldly convention as for example this "is a monster" in the dark.

Madhyamika (a follower of Madhyamaka) will never locate any reference point (a tree) in the Two Truths (Prasangika), but for the purpose of the debate to help others understand Madhyamka He sometimes uses suitable reference points as the "antidote, medicine" for them only (Svatantra; autonomous position), for example "this is a tree" instead of "this is a monster". To free them "from the all reference points", from clinging to the Two Truths, to gradually lead them or to point-out "the freedom beyond the seeming'="unblurred, unimpaired vision" or at least to show them "the seeming is not totally faulty", respect the karma law of cause/result, and especially here to free from fear of the "monster in the dark", and so on.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:51 am

Svatantrika divided conventional truth into 2:
1) True conventional truth
2) False conventional truth

Prasangika divided conventional truth only into 1:
1) False conventional truth.

There is no such thing called true conventional truth for Prasangika.

Both speak same language in daily life.

This is a tree. This is a glass.

From outside it looks same. But from inside they are very different.

This is a glass, this is a tree: are true conventional truth for Svatantrika.
This is a glass, this is a tree: are false conventional truth for Prasangika.

Prasangika never ever acknowledge conventional truth to be truly true or halfly true. It is always absolutely false.

The reason is because reality cannot be describe by words. So, if you try to describe it by words, it is always error. That is why conventional truth according to Prasangika is always false. Reality cannot be describe by any words.

What is the taste of sugar?

Sweet?

If you think so, that is how your mind tell the story. The story of mind is not reality. It is ignorance (if you don't know its nature).

But if you look again, the taste of sugar cannot be described. Even Buddha is mute (Milarepa).
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:52 am

DarwidHalim wrote:Prasangika never ever acknowledge conventional truth to be truly true or halfly true. It is always absolutely false.

It is ridiculous. How someone who has never located anything, finally will locate something called "false"?
Moreover, Santideva for you is wrong because He wrote: "without relying on conventions, the ultimate cannot be realized".
In other words, worldly beings can use reference points, until the collapse of their analysis:
As Santideva wrote "When analysis finally has no basis left, it is called Nirvana." But for you worldly beings are incurable!
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:58 am

It is ridiculous. How someone who has never located anything, finally will locate something called "false"?


Geshe Tashi Tsering - Ultimate Truth, Relative Truth - Page 115.
http://www.amazon.com/Relative-Truth-Ul ... 325&sr=1-1

Moreover, Santideva for you is wrong because He wrote: "without relying on conventions, the ultimate cannot be realized".
In other words, worldly beings can use reference points, until the collapse of their analysis:
As Santideva wrote "When analysis finally has no basis left, it is called Nirvana."


"When analysis finally has no basis left, it is called Nirvana." - They just arive at the conceptual nirvana.

But for you worldly beings are incurable!


Really? Are you sure I am saying this? :coffee:
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:11 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Geshe Tashi Tsering - Ultimate Truth, Relative Truth - Page 115.
http://www.amazon.com/Relative-Truth-Ul ... 325&sr=1-1



"When analysis finally has no basis left, it is called Nirvana." - They just arive at the conceptual nirvana.


Really? Are you sure I am saying this? :coffee:

Sure, it was the implication. You linked to gelug so called "prasangikas" which are not mentioned by me here, so offtopic for me, sorry.
It is not conceptual, when the collapse of all conceptuality, because of "mental nonengagement" according to Kamalasila's Stages of meditations.
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:21 am

Mariusz wrote:Sure, it was the implication. You linked to gelug so called "prasangikas" which are not mentioned by me here, so offtopic for me, sorry.
It is not conceptual, when the collapse of all conceptuality, because of "mental nonengagement" according to Kamalasila's Stages of meditations.


So, where is the actual dispute?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Conventional & Ultimate Truth

Postby Mariusz » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:15 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Mariusz wrote:Sure, it was the implication. You linked to gelug so called "prasangikas" which are not mentioned by me here, so offtopic for me, sorry.
It is not conceptual, when the collapse of all conceptuality, because of "mental nonengagement" according to Kamalasila's Stages of meditations.


So, where is the actual dispute?

I'm not recommended to dispute "gelug prasangikas" here in the DharmaWheel I think. As far as I investigated I don't need them to understand Madhyamaka. However I'm in process of learning of the subtle points o view and looking for reliable non-biased english/german/polish sources, so perhaps in the future :anjali:
Mariusz
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm

Previous

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

>