They talk and perform deeds.Queequeg wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:14 amI don't see any controversy with that, except that it doesn't address how the buddhas engage through the conventions.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 11, 2020 12:10 amIt's pretty straight forward, worldly convention is just the syllable and expressions used by mundane people. So you explain the ultimate to them using conventional language. The profound truth of the Buddha's teaching is the truth seen by āryas——that all phenomena do not arise. If one does not understand both the distinction between the two truths and the necessity to ground the explanation of the ultimate in the conventions used by worldly people, the latter will never see the profound truth of the Buddha's teaching which is only seen by āryas.Queequeg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:15 pm
Here, Nagarjuna, even as he's declaring a relative truth and an ultimate truth, he is suggesting that there is a relationship between the relative and ultimate. So the question is, "Well, Nagarjuna, what's the connection between the ultimate and relative?" To simply say the relative is merely false perception and ultimate is true perception serves a purpose in some respects. But then what of this "foundation in the conventional truth" that Nagarjuna says is necessary? What of this "profound truth"?
Yes, it does. Buddhas talk, perform deeds, and they are omniscient. No third truth is needed to explain upaya, since all upaya is in the domain of relative truth.The Three Truths address the wellspring of conventional teachings from the Buddha (upaya). Your explanation does not bridge that.
The main point of the Sutra, among its various themes, is ekayana, though that is not unique to the lotus, nor is primordial buddhahood unique to the lotus. A recounting of all its themes is beyond the scope of this forum.This passage has nothing at all to do with the two truths, or even ultimate truth. The Saddharmapundarika does have a few nice passages on the nature of reality, but that is not the main point of sūtra, and definitely not the point of the parable of the burning house.
Edify us, sir.
Often, when one finds themes of concern to Tibetans, the very same themes are of no interest to OG Indian Buddhists. The same can be said of the Chinese.Perhaps. Not really a concern of mine. I'd like to understand why that is to an extent.It's not confusing, but to someone schooled in Indian Buddhism, it seems tendentious, besides the point, and based on flawed definitions.
For example, until the tantric period, 650 onward, Indian Buddhists expressed virtually no systematic interest in tathagatagarbha.