Namdrol wrote:Anders Honore wrote:Mariusz wrote:There are some, such as Gorampa and Shākya Chokden, who say that this verse [verse 6.75 of the Entrance] proves that Chandrakīrti holds, from his own perspective, that self-awareness exists conventionally. They also say that in Chandrakīrti’s tradition the all-base, self-awareness, outer objects, and the per-
son all exist conventionally, but they do not exist as “conventional phenomena that can withstand analysis.”
These positions are untenable. The master Chandrakīrti does not, as his own position, accept any phenomenon as existent or nonexistent in either ultimate or conventional truth
Stupid outsider question here that I am sure has been covered a thousand times in the endless Prasangika/Svatantrika debates, but what exactly is wrong with saying that things exist conventionally? How could there even be language if we did not play along with the convention that things exist?
This is all nauseating hair-splitting by Tibetan scholars with nothing better to do with their time.
That's good to know, in regards to the perspective to take on this anyway. I am just a bit curious, really.