Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:38 pm
Matt J wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:35 pm
It sounds to me like Astus is following the Gelug view of stating that things exist conventionally.
!a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions
This is where I think the term occur
is more accurate.
The phrase, “exist conventionally”, from a Buddhist standpoint, is actually an oxymoron, because “exist” ultimately refers to self-arising, or having an intrinsic reality that isn’t the result of causes and conditions. But, something cannot ‘exist’ intrinsically and simultaneously only arise within the context of something else. So, the phrase “exists conventionally” cannot be taken at face value.
When Gelugpas say that phenomena “exist conventionally” they mean that just as objects in a dream “exist” within the context of that dream (“conventionally” means with regard to context), objects appear as real within the context of our samsaric experience. If you drop a brick on your toe, whether in a dream or not, there is no denying that the pain occurs as an object of awareness (even if that pain, as some might argue, is merely a mental projection).
Unfortunately, the term “occur conventionally” is not used. There is no dispute that the ‘reality’ each person constantly experiences occurs conventionally.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.