Malcolm wrote: Kenneth Chan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:You are responding to cone, not me.
With respect to Lam rim chen mo —— marvelous book, good translation. Cutler and his team have done a remarkable job.
With respect to to certain points of LRCM, however, I have some disagreements. The essence of them we are discussing now. I do not need you to cite long passages from LRCM.
I did not question whether you understand Tsongkhapa, though your recent responses have indeed brought up the doubt about whether you understand Madhyamaka at all, let alone Tsongkhapa.
My apologies, it was indeed Conebeckham who made that comment. In any case, both you and Conebeckham can take a look again at these two explanatory posts: One was posted on Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:45 pm, and another on Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:26 pm. If either of you disagree with them, please explain why you disagree.
You cited Tsongkhapa:
Even reality, the ultimate truth, has no intrinsic nature at all.
Again, this is the assertion that the ultimate is a nonexistence.
I don't think LTK is defining ultimate truth as a non-existent. He says inherent existence cannot be found when analyzed by reason
. It is this irrationally imposed inherency
which is non-existent. Rational analysis can only address rational objects. We can prove, rationally, that there is not, has not been, and could never be any inherently existing thing. That does not posit non-existence as the nature of ultimate truth; it simply points out that inherency is no truth at all, neither relative nor ultimate, and takes it out of the equation.
In LTK's system, that is only a first step: eliminate what can be shown by reason
not to exist. We're still left with our conventional interactions, which cannot be analyzed by ultimate reason. Next, using the understanding that our ordinary reactions are based on a fictitious quality of inherency, we can re-examine our conventional reasoning. The new conventional reasoning is based on concepts of dependent arising and emptiness, and it applies the Dharma of what is to be abandoned and what is to be adopted in order to realize peace and happiness.
Although I do not pretend to understand Georges Dreyfus' full line of reasoning in Recognizing Reality
, I think he does conclude that LTK was a realist, but not in the sense of an essentialist advocating real existence. He is a realist because what happens among ordinary beings is experienced
as very real, but that there is a fundamental misapprehension (namely, inherent existence) which can be removed by reason, thereby facilitating the negation of samsaric suffering with bodhicitta.
This is not to say that the Dzogchen approach isn't faster, more efficient, and more direct. But it is to advocate the graduated path for those of us who need it. I believe it is possible to realize emptiness directly on the path of seeing through this method -- however, I say that based on what I have received from teachers, not any personal experience. I'm nowhere close to that.
We who are like children shrink from pain but love its causes. - Shantideva