Just because the understandings are related (not separate) does not mean that they are the same thing.smcj wrote:Tshongkhapa agrees with you. From Tshongkhapa's "Three Principal Aspects of the Path" p. 43:
Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
As long as these two understating (sic) are seen as separate,
One has not yet realized the intent of the Buddha.
Unreality of Thoughts
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Uh, that's not how I read it.Sherab Dorje wrote:Just because the understandings are related (not separate) does not mean that they are the same thing.smcj wrote:Tshongkhapa agrees with you. From Tshongkhapa's "Three Principal Aspects of the Path" p. 43:
Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
As long as these two understating (sic) are seen as separate,
One has not yet realized the intent of the Buddha.
But again, this is an idiosyncrasy of Tsongkhapa and the Gelug school. It's not universally accepted. In fact I believe that this is the defining issue that differentiates Tshongkhapa's Madhyamaka from Chandrakirti's. Affording appearances a provisional reality in this is why Malcolm calls Tshonkhapa a latent realist. I think.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
It's not a matter of interpretation, but of simple logic:
If I say that I have ears and ears hear sound, that doesn't mean that ears are sound, or that I am sound, or that I have sound, or that ears have sound, etc...
Related, but not the same.
If I say that I have ears and ears hear sound, that doesn't mean that ears are sound, or that I am sound, or that I have sound, or that ears have sound, etc...
Related, but not the same.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
smcj wrote:
However it should be noted that in this he departs from Chandrakirti.
No he doesn't. Not at all.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Ah, there you are! I was hoping you'd jump in.Malcolm wrote:No he doesn't. Not at all.smcj wrote: However it should be noted that in this he departs from Chandrakirti.
Ok, so where am I mistaken in this? I thought Chandrakirti gave no provisional validation for apparent phenomena and Tshongkhapa does. And I thought that the quote I gave summarized Tsongkhapa's provisional validation. No?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
smcj wrote:Ah, there you are! I was hoping you'd jump in.Malcolm wrote:No he doesn't. Not at all.smcj wrote: However it should be noted that in this he departs from Chandrakirti.
Ok, so where am I mistaken in this? I thought Chandrakirti gave no provisional validation for apparent phenomena and Tshongkhapa does. And I thought that the quote I gave summarized Tsongkhapa's provisional validation. No?
Candrakirti accepts both perspectives: the first is conventional, and cannot bear analysis.Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
The second is the result of analysis.
The point of his verse here is that these two facts are the non-duality of the two truths.
Where Tzongkhapa generally is considered to get into trouble when he tries to redefine what it means to be free from the four extremes, i.e., his formulation freedom from extremes simple means that things are not existent in the ultimate and not nonexistent in the relative.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Huh. I thought that Tsongkhapa's acceptance of dependent arisings as the basis for his asserting the "not nonexistece of the relative" was what made him unique. But if you say Candrakirti accepts this also then that obviously isn't the case at all. So at this point I either have to do a lot more reading on it, or just let it go and take it on good authority that Tsongkhapa has some sort of provision for the "not nonexistence of the relative".Malcolm wrote:Candrakirti accepts both perspectives: the first is conventional, and cannot bear analysis.Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
The second is the result of analysis.
The point of his verse here is that these two facts are the non-duality of the two truths.
Where Tzongkhapa generally is considered to get into trouble when he tries to redefine what it means to be free from the four extremes, i.e., his formulation freedom from extremes simple means that things are not existent in the ultimate and not nonexistent in the relative.
Oh well, I guess Greg was right!
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Re: Unreality of Thoughts
Sherab:
Metaphor: The mirror is not different from the reflections and the reflections are not different from the mirror = no separation.
Moon reflection in water = inseparability.
But to see that metaphor by thoughts, they are definitely different. Of course metaphor is pointing only.
Another metaphor is cleaning the mirror and not the reflections appearing in it.
As own mind = the mirror need to be cleaned in order to recognize how all appear and how all is. And so it will not help our practice by trying to clean the appearances, rather it is own mind who need to be purified in order to see how all is. I guess trying to clean appearances maintains smoothly suffering.
This just to not bring confusion with metaphors, the first example is regarding what I see as unity of the two truths.
Again, for me this asks guidance by awaken nature.
Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
As long as these two understating (sic) are seen as separate,
One has not yet realized the intent of the Buddha.
I like this: not same and not different. Emptiness-form, form-emptiness.Just because the understandings are related (not separate) does not mean that they are the same thing.
Metaphor: The mirror is not different from the reflections and the reflections are not different from the mirror = no separation.
Moon reflection in water = inseparability.
But to see that metaphor by thoughts, they are definitely different. Of course metaphor is pointing only.
Another metaphor is cleaning the mirror and not the reflections appearing in it.
As own mind = the mirror need to be cleaned in order to recognize how all appear and how all is. And so it will not help our practice by trying to clean the appearances, rather it is own mind who need to be purified in order to see how all is. I guess trying to clean appearances maintains smoothly suffering.
This just to not bring confusion with metaphors, the first example is regarding what I see as unity of the two truths.
Again, for me this asks guidance by awaken nature.