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