Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

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
futerko
Posts: 1198
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by futerko » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:53 pm

it's kind of funny because the title of Rogzompa's text, "establishing appearances as divine", is kind of self-explanatory...

I spoke to Heidi Koppel about her work, and she reflected the general consensus that it was too academic, meaning "overly conceptual", but for me this was its triumph - it was very clear - precisely because I had trained in a certain, less fashionable discipline.

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by tobes » Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:10 am

People who object to conceptual clarity do not realise how much conceptual confusion is inherent in the objection!

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4125
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by LastLegend » Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:34 pm

tobes wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:54 pm
futerko wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:38 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:27 pm

Ah, now that explanation I followed, thank you!
...for me it does not seem quite correct though,

my understanding is that one cannot confuse Ontology with emptiness - it is precisely not-Being that manifests

In other words, I think that Mipham shows that this ontological claim is merely the nature of experience rather than any actual claim to truth - by which I mean that this is also 'empty' - it is merely a model which corresponds to how things must manifest for us, and for mind - and in this sense Mipham also upholds the view of Dzogchen

...which means that one can bypass philosophy completely - for Mipham, Longchenpa's experiential path and Rogzompa's intellectual path are equal in this sense, neither does he demote the conceptual path because, properly viewed, these concepts cannot be mistaken for an alternate concrete physical reality - they are not thereby dismissed, but rather the very essence of any manifestation whatsoever.
Yes, I agree. And this is why it may be important to be able distinguish between ontology and phenomenology; Buddhist philosophers do sometimes make ontological claims and the whole trajectory of Madhyamaka is basically a dialectical rejection of this. But can you know the end point of a dialectical rejection of something, without understanding what that something is?

No. If you do that, you'll just be parroting a view instead of genuinely understanding it yourself; no better than a Madhyamaka or Dzogchen ideologist.

The best way to understand Nagarjuna is to understand the notion of svabhava. And this is of course a meditation: looking for the I and not finding. If you just assume it is not there, it will be there!
How we are clear that’s not just an intellectual exercise?
Make personal vows.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2483
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by Caoimhghín » Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:40 pm

Some Indian Mahāyānikas called the dharmakāya the svābhāvikakāya (the body that exists via its own being). Buddhadharma is diverse and contextual, and oftentimes the quest for textbook-style "one size fits all" definition and terminology, the quest for one-to-one correspondences of terms with discreet exclusive meanings, simplifies to the point of distortion. IMO, tho.

I refer to the positive tetralemma in putting this forward.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4125
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by LastLegend » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:06 pm

Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:40 pm
Some Indian Mahāyānikas called the dharmakāya the svābhāvikakāya (the body that exists via its own being). Buddhadharma is diverse and contextual, and oftentimes the quest for textbook-style "one size fits all" definition and terminology, the quest for one-to-one correspondences of terms with discreet exclusive meanings, simplifies to the point of distortion. IMO, tho.

I refer to the positive tetralemma in putting this forward.
Is the body aware on its own?
Make personal vows.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2483
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by Caoimhghín » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:10 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:06 pm
Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:40 pm
Some Indian Mahāyānikas called the dharmakāya the svābhāvikakāya (the body that exists via its own being). Buddhadharma is diverse and contextual, and oftentimes the quest for textbook-style "one size fits all" definition and terminology, the quest for one-to-one correspondences of terms with discreet exclusive meanings, simplifies to the point of distortion. IMO, tho.

I refer to the positive tetralemma in putting this forward.
Is the body aware on its own?
Bhāva is usually "existence," or to use the words of Venerable Bodhi, "becoming." It's a term meant to be interpreted in its own context, and some Mahāyānikas have used it as a term for the dharmakāya.

Madhyama is the middle. A Mādhyamika is a "middlist" or a "middler." Svābhāva is "own-being," a Svābhāvika is an "own-being-er" or an "own-being-ist."
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4125
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by LastLegend » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:23 pm

Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:10 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:06 pm
Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:40 pm
Some Indian Mahāyānikas called the dharmakāya the svābhāvikakāya (the body that exists via its own being). Buddhadharma is diverse and contextual, and oftentimes the quest for textbook-style "one size fits all" definition and terminology, the quest for one-to-one correspondences of terms with discreet exclusive meanings, simplifies to the point of distortion. IMO, tho.

I refer to the positive tetralemma in putting this forward.
Is the body aware on its own?
Bhāva is usually "existence," or to use the words of Venerable Bodhi, "becoming." It's a term meant to be interpreted in its own context, and some Mahāyānikas have used it as a term for the dharmakāya.

Madhyama is the middle. A Mādhyamika is a "middlist" or a "middler." Svābhāva is "own-being," a Svābhāvika is an "own-being-er" or an "own-being-ist."
So then what about that sees and makes distinction between “own-being” and itself?
Make personal vows.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2483
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by Caoimhghín » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:28 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:23 pm
Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:10 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:06 pm


Is the body aware on its own?
Bhāva is usually "existence," or to use the words of Venerable Bodhi, "becoming." It's a term meant to be interpreted in its own context, and some Mahāyānikas have used it as a term for the dharmakāya.

Madhyama is the middle. A Mādhyamika is a "middlist" or a "middler." Svābhāva is "own-being," a Svābhāvika is an "own-being-er" or an "own-being-ist."
So then what about that sees and makes distinction between “own-being” and itself?
I don't know. "Own-being" would normally be "itself" without duality, but selves aren't kosher.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4125
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by LastLegend » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:47 pm

Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:28 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:23 pm
Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:10 pm

Bhāva is usually "existence," or to use the words of Venerable Bodhi, "becoming." It's a term meant to be interpreted in its own context, and some Mahāyānikas have used it as a term for the dharmakāya.

Madhyama is the middle. A Mādhyamika is a "middlist" or a "middler." Svābhāva is "own-being," a Svābhāvika is an "own-being-er" or an "own-being-ist."
So then what about that sees and makes distinction between “own-being” and itself?
I don't know. "Own-being" would normally be "itself" without duality, but selves aren't kosher.
I am just wondering if we are able to see ‘that’ creates duality.
Make personal vows.

User avatar
SonamTashi
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by SonamTashi » Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:28 pm

I thought the svābhāvikakāya was just the union of the 3 kayas. That's what rigpawiki seems to imply, and that's what I understood from the teachings I've received.

https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?tit ... havikakaya
:bow: :buddha1: :bow: :anjali: :meditate:

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2483
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by Caoimhghín » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:22 pm

This seems to be Khenpo Pema Vajra's specific way of framing the terms, and my gut assumption is that it has to be taken in its own context, that of Dzogchen Buddhism. Other sources present svābhāvikakāya and dharmakāya as two different names for something identical, but that doesn't mean he is wrong by any means if he proposes a finer distinction between the two terms. For instance, some teachers teach that Amitābha is the Ādibuddha and that doesn't make them right or wrong.
Last edited by Caoimhghín on Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

Bristollad
Posts: 582
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by Bristollad » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:22 pm

ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་སྐུ་

Berzin Defi­nitions

(1) In the Gelug non-Kalachakra system, the voidness of a Buddha's omniscient mind and its state of being parted from the two sets of obscurations.

(2) In the Gelug Kalachakra system, the blissful awareness aspect of a Buddha's omniscient mind.

(3) In the Non-Gelug systems, the inseparability of all the Corpora of a Buddha – equivalent to the inseparability of the two truths. Also called: Body of Essential Nature, Nature Body.

User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 2483
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by Caoimhghín » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:59 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:22 pm
ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་སྐུ་
(3) In the Non-Gelug systems, the inseparability of all the Corpora of a Buddha – equivalent to the inseparability of the two truths. Also called: Body of Essential Nature, Nature Body.
"Inseperability of all the corpora ("bodies")" sounds like "the union of the 3 kayas." So at least one Dzogchenpa's (if I'm even using that term right) interpretation is somewhat congruent to what is in this encyclopedia called "in Non-Gelug systems."
歸命本覺心法身常住妙法心蓮臺本來莊嚴三身徳三十七尊住心
城遠離因果法然具普門塵數諸三昧無邊徳海本圓滿還我頂禮心諸佛

In reverence for the root gnosis of the heart, the dharmakāya,
for the ever present good law of the heart, the lotus terrace,
for the inborn adornment of the trikāya, the thirty-seven sages dwelling in the heart,
for that which is removed from seed and fruit, the upright key to the universal gate,
for all boundless concentrations, the sea of virtue, the root perfection,
I prostrate, bowing to the hearts of all Buddhas.

胎藏金剛菩提心義略問答鈔, Treatise on the teaching of the gnostic heart of the womb and the diamond, T2397.1.470c5-8

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by tobes » Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:43 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:34 pm
tobes wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:54 pm
futerko wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:38 pm


...for me it does not seem quite correct though,

my understanding is that one cannot confuse Ontology with emptiness - it is precisely not-Being that manifests

In other words, I think that Mipham shows that this ontological claim is merely the nature of experience rather than any actual claim to truth - by which I mean that this is also 'empty' - it is merely a model which corresponds to how things must manifest for us, and for mind - and in this sense Mipham also upholds the view of Dzogchen

...which means that one can bypass philosophy completely - for Mipham, Longchenpa's experiential path and Rogzompa's intellectual path are equal in this sense, neither does he demote the conceptual path because, properly viewed, these concepts cannot be mistaken for an alternate concrete physical reality - they are not thereby dismissed, but rather the very essence of any manifestation whatsoever.
Yes, I agree. And this is why it may be important to be able distinguish between ontology and phenomenology; Buddhist philosophers do sometimes make ontological claims and the whole trajectory of Madhyamaka is basically a dialectical rejection of this. But can you know the end point of a dialectical rejection of something, without understanding what that something is?

No. If you do that, you'll just be parroting a view instead of genuinely understanding it yourself; no better than a Madhyamaka or Dzogchen ideologist.

The best way to understand Nagarjuna is to understand the notion of svabhava. And this is of course a meditation: looking for the I and not finding. If you just assume it is not there, it will be there!
How we are clear that’s not just an intellectual exercise?
It's up to the person. You can meditate on it or not. If not, then it will be intellectual.

However, I'm going to be scandalous and assert that even in the latter case, it's good, kusala, wholesome. One day in the future, the intellect that reads Nagarjuna only intellectually, will discover the limits of reason.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4125
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by LastLegend » Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:19 am

tobes wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:43 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:34 pm
tobes wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:54 pm


Yes, I agree. And this is why it may be important to be able distinguish between ontology and phenomenology; Buddhist philosophers do sometimes make ontological claims and the whole trajectory of Madhyamaka is basically a dialectical rejection of this. But can you know the end point of a dialectical rejection of something, without understanding what that something is?

No. If you do that, you'll just be parroting a view instead of genuinely understanding it yourself; no better than a Madhyamaka or Dzogchen ideologist.

The best way to understand Nagarjuna is to understand the notion of svabhava. And this is of course a meditation: looking for the I and not finding. If you just assume it is not there, it will be there!
How we are clear that’s not just an intellectual exercise?
It's up to the person. You can meditate on it or not. If not, then it will be intellectual.

However, I'm going to be scandalous and assert that even in the latter case, it's good, kusala, wholesome. One day in the future, the intellect that reads Nagarjuna only intellectually, will discover the limits of reason.
Same as contemplation or no?
Make personal vows.

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by tobes » Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:26 am

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:19 am
tobes wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:43 pm
LastLegend wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:34 pm


How we are clear that’s not just an intellectual exercise?
It's up to the person. You can meditate on it or not. If not, then it will be intellectual.

However, I'm going to be scandalous and assert that even in the latter case, it's good, kusala, wholesome. One day in the future, the intellect that reads Nagarjuna only intellectually, will discover the limits of reason.
Same as contemplation or no?
Of course contemplation is superior.
But:
1. there are many people who contemplate emptiness and not many on the bhumis. Therefore, contemplation can very easily stray/mislead/be fruitless. Moreover, many such people would benefit from more study, not less.
2. the arch nemesis "intellectual" who only reasons about emptiness via Nagarjuna et al may not get particularly far whilst in that mode. But, the seeds of that engagement will ripen, and when they ripen sufficiently, realisations of emptiness will be much swifter for having engaged intellectually previously.

I have heard many great teachers assert this, and indeed, the Prajnaparamita herself asserts this.

:anjali:

User avatar
SonamTashi
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by SonamTashi » Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:06 am

Caoimhghín wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:59 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:22 pm
ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་སྐུ་
(3) In the Non-Gelug systems, the inseparability of all the Corpora of a Buddha – equivalent to the inseparability of the two truths. Also called: Body of Essential Nature, Nature Body.
"Inseperability of all the corpora ("bodies")" sounds like "the union of the 3 kayas." So at least one Dzogchenpa's (if I'm even using that term right) interpretation is somewhat congruent to what is in this encyclopedia called "in Non-Gelug systems."
I practice in the Nyingma school, so I'm pretty sure the union of the 3 kayas generally represents Nyingma and Dzogchen. Dzogchen can be found outside of Nyingma so it is possible that the Gelug system that mentioned it that way was Dzogchen as well. For example, every Dalai Lama since the 5th has practiced Dzogchen.

Edit: misread what you wrote. For some reason I read it as you saying the union of the 3 kayas was a Geluk framwork.
:bow: :buddha1: :bow: :anjali: :meditate:

muni
Posts: 4885
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by muni » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:16 am

The inseparability of the kayas, the inseparability of the two truths https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-ma ... w-mahayana, the inseparability of dependence-emptiness, the inseparability of awareness creativity display............ in that way no self no other has many ways/methods to help, to come out of the confusion of duality; the individual and the outside solid world. Since by this, behaviour in accordance keeps a conditioned state/ bounded state. The mind binds but also the mind liberates.

Whatever is necessary to realize confusion and be freed of it, how would that be rejected?
Phenomena adorn emptiness, but never corrupt it.

Only if you have developed the love and compassion of relative bodhichitta can absolute bodhichitta – the very essence of the Great Perfection and the Great Seal – ever take birth in your being. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 4125
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by LastLegend » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:28 pm

tobes wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:26 am
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:19 am
tobes wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:43 pm


It's up to the person. You can meditate on it or not. If not, then it will be intellectual.

However, I'm going to be scandalous and assert that even in the latter case, it's good, kusala, wholesome. One day in the future, the intellect that reads Nagarjuna only intellectually, will discover the limits of reason.
Same as contemplation or no?
Of course contemplation is superior.
But:
1. there are many people who contemplate emptiness and not many on the bhumis. Therefore, contemplation can very easily stray/mislead/be fruitless. Moreover, many such people would benefit from more study, not less.
2. the arch nemesis "intellectual" who only reasons about emptiness via Nagarjuna et al may not get particularly far whilst in that mode. But, the seeds of that engagement will ripen, and when they ripen sufficiently, realisations of emptiness will be much swifter for having engaged intellectually previously.

I have heard many great teachers assert this, and indeed, the Prajnaparamita herself asserts this.

:anjali:
You mentioned ‘I’ is there but we assume it’s not there, so is ‘I’ constant or does it arise in relationship?
Make personal vows.

User avatar
tobes
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Two Models of the Two Truths: Ontologicaland Phenomenological Approaches

Post by tobes » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:46 pm

LastLegend wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:28 pm
tobes wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 1:26 am
LastLegend wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:19 am


Same as contemplation or no?
Of course contemplation is superior.
But:
1. there are many people who contemplate emptiness and not many on the bhumis. Therefore, contemplation can very easily stray/mislead/be fruitless. Moreover, many such people would benefit from more study, not less.
2. the arch nemesis "intellectual" who only reasons about emptiness via Nagarjuna et al may not get particularly far whilst in that mode. But, the seeds of that engagement will ripen, and when they ripen sufficiently, realisations of emptiness will be much swifter for having engaged intellectually previously.

I have heard many great teachers assert this, and indeed, the Prajnaparamita herself asserts this.

:anjali:
You mentioned ‘I’ is there but we assume it’s not there, so is ‘I’ constant or does it arise in relationship?
It is constant from the point of view of conventional reality as concealing/deceptive.

It arises in relationship from the point of view of conventional reality correctly understood (i.e. as dependent arising).

It has never existed from the point of view of ultimate reality.

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Astus, Shaku Kenshin, Wayfarer and 26 guests