Mere existence, conventional existence & Buddha nature

Post Reply
Dharmadale
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:33 am

Mere existence, conventional existence & Buddha nature

Post by Dharmadale »

Hi,
In Gelug Madhyamaka are 'mere existence' & 'conventional existence' synonymous?
In Gelug Madhyamaka if Buddha nature is said to lack true existence, are either (or both) of the above labels applied to it?
Thanks
wei wu wei
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:01 am

Re: Mere existence, conventional existence & Buddha nature

Post by wei wu wei »

Dharmadale wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 8:02 am Hi,
In Gelug Madhyamaka are 'mere existence' & 'conventional existence' synonymous?
In Gelug Madhyamaka if Buddha nature is said to lack true existence, are either (or both) of the above labels applied to it?
Thanks

Yes to both questions. Remember, the Gelugpas take Nagarjuna's statement that the ultimate exists conventionally very seriously. Nothing exists ultimately.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9446
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mere existence, conventional existence & Buddha nature

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ultimate can only exist in relation to / compared with relative
Just as infinite only exists in relation to / compared with finite.
Thus, ultimate is still relative.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Lhundrub Jinpa
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 9:08 pm

Re: Mere existence, conventional existence & Buddha nature

Post by Lhundrub Jinpa »

wei wu wei wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 7:35 am Gelugpas take Nagarjuna's statement that the ultimate exists conventionally very seriously.
" Nothing exists ultimately." -- true.

" the ultimate exists conventionally." -- wrong, or oversimplified at best.

Let's clarify it a bit.

THE TWO TRUTHS

The Lord Rinpoche, Lama Tsongkhapa Losang Drakpa, propounds a unique and distinctive Middle Way (Sk. madhyamaka) philosophy by differentiating between Chandrakīrti's Consequentialist (Sk. prāsaṅgika) interpretation of the works of Arya Nāgārjuna, and Autonomist (Sk. svātantrika) interpretation of Bhāvaviveka. Tsongkhapa is strongly influenced by the Indo-Tibetan Buddhist logico-epistemological tradition (Sk. pramāṇa) founded by Indian epistemologists, Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. 

Tsongkhapa strikes a balance between acquiring necessary knowledge, and a personal experience of this knowledge, because our conventional knowledge of a mystical experience of a yogin is not this mystical experience itself, and never will be.
    
The Lord Rinpoche says that the emptiness of inherent existence (Sk. Svabhāva śūnyatā) is the ultimate truth (Sk. paramārtha-satya), and says, after Nāgārjuna in Mula Madhyamaka Karika:  Even that is only true conventionally, another way of saying:  Also that is empty of being inherently true in some absolute sense, because there are no exceptions to the emptiness of inherent existence, whatsoever.

At the same time Tsongkhapa develops hermeneutics to retain the authority of correct moral statements on a conventional level. His most influential writings reconcile the philosophy of emptiness with the imperative of personal experience embodied in a universal altruistic motivation of bodhicitta. Tsongkhapa upholds the centrality of ordinary moral life, unlike Hindu tantrikas, who love to misbehave badly.

Lastly, the Lord Rinpoche develops an absolutely unique, distinctive analysis of dependent origination (Sk. pratītya-samutpāda) to support his assertion that: A phenomenon is nothing more than non-duality of both, a conventional truth and its ultimate truth at the same time (the inseparability of emptiness and dependent origination), existing as our mere mental label only, akin to illusory phenomena of our dreams that also depend upon our minds dreaming them up into a dreamworld of dream existence.

Tsongkhapa’s distinctive analysis of dependent origination demonstrating that any phenomenon is nothing more than non-duality of both, a conventional truth and its ultimate truth at the same time (the inseparability of emptiness and dependent origination), had been first suggested by the Buddha in the Heart of Wisdom Sutra: Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form. Form is not other than emptiness.

https://vajra-cutter.mystrikingly.com/# ... commentary
Post Reply

Return to “Gelug”