Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 1:14 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
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

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

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Last edited by Malcolm on Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 418
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 418
Quote:
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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 418
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!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:08 pm
Posts: 708
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group