Unreality of Thoughts

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Grigoris »

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.
Just because the understandings are related (not separate) does not mean that they are the same thing.
"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
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Sherab Dorje wrote:
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.
Just because the understandings are related (not separate) does not mean that they are the same thing.
Uh, that's not how I read it. :shrug:

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)
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Grigoris »

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.
"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
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote:
However it should be noted that in this he departs from Chandrakirti.

No he doesn't. Not at all.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote: However it should be noted that in this he departs from Chandrakirti.
No he doesn't. Not at all.
Ah, there you are! I was hoping you'd jump in.

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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
smcj wrote: However it should be noted that in this he departs from Chandrakirti.
No he doesn't. Not at all.
Ah, there you are! I was hoping you'd jump in.

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?
Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
Candrakirti accepts both perspectives: the first is conventional, and cannot bear analysis.
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.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7885
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote:
Appearances are infallible dependent arisings;
Emptiness is free of assertions.
Candrakirti accepts both perspectives: the first is conventional, and cannot bear analysis.
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.
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".

Oh well, I guess Greg was right!

:toilet:
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)
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Unreality of Thoughts

Post by muni »

Sherab:
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.
Just because the understandings are related (not separate) does not mean that they are the same thing.
I like this: not same and not different. Emptiness-form, form-emptiness.
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.

:meditate:
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”