cloudburst wrote: conebeckham wrote:
Relative and absolute,
These the two truths are declared to be.
The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,
For intellect is grounded in the relative.
The first two lines are clear--there are two truths, Relative and Absolute. The third line indicates that the Absolute is not an object of the intellect. "Intellect," in this case, is a fairly specific word, in Tibetan, blos., which stands for an aspect of conceptual mind. "Intellect" is a good translation, IMO. Malcolm translated it as "Mind," and that is okay, but it's a more specific aspect of the mental continuum, in my opinion, and "Intellect" is more precise. It is this aspect of the mind, blos., which is considered to be of, or on the level of, the conventional truth. I find this to be very clear--it says that our conceptual mind, analytic capacity, Intellectual knowledge, etc., is relative and cannot cognize the Ultimate.
I agree with all this
Show me, in the Sanskrit or Tibetan, where the "non-affirming negative phenomenon" is mentioned.
I don't think you have understood my points, I don't think I ever defended this translation. In my understanding, which is limited, I think this translation is meant to transmit to students what the translator feel is the intended meaning. He has obviously given himself considerable leeway to interpolate etc. That said, I personally feel the translation does a good job of making explicit the meaning of the verse.
I would argue that the intended meaning of this verse is as follows: "There are two truths, conventional and ultimate. Ultimate cannot be an object of mind. Mental activity, in the sense of discursive mind, intellect, etc., is conventional (and therefore not ultimate). That is all the verse says.
Explain to me why blos. must needs be translated as "dualistic appearance."
to say it needs to be translated in this way would be to go way to far, but I will hazard that it is being translated in this way because any conventional mind (intellect) will necessarily have dualistic appearance
No argument with that assertion, but that verse does not point to that assertion. There may be other verses of the text that do, however.
conebeckham wrote: Show me where the original concludes that blos. is "mistaken awareness."
if it is a conventional mind, it DEFINITELY is mistaken, no? Again, I am not saying this is found in the original translation, but am happy to explore why the meaning offered may be helpful.....
Again, no argument with the assertion that conventional mind is "mistaken awareness" with respect to the ultimate, which the verse clearly defines as something not to be encompassed by the "mind," the discursive consciousness, intellect, etc. I think this is a case of reaching a conclusion that is clear in the "root text." However, it does lead to a question, potentially--which is, "well, then, what is UNMISTAKEN Awareness?" Is such a thing possible? It strikes my as an unnecessary tangent, and one with potential pitfalls.
Summing this up even more succinctly, I think we can say: "Conventional Truth is what is an object of mind, and all such objects cannot be Ultimate Truth." That's it. No assertion of "existence," per se, at any level of truth, in this verse, at least.
hope to get back to some of your previous points soon, I have no stake in arguing about translations of Shantideva
Okay, but you should have some concern about the accuracy of translations of Shantideva!