5heaps wrote:Tom wrote:For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate.
they carry all the weight they need to because relative truths are nevertheless valid [for an obscurer] and, more importantly, do not exist by way of essential natures; they are imputedly knowable. monism wants to say that ultimate truth is independent of the person in some self-sufficiently knowable way. thats all we need to know in order to accept that they [shentong] dismiss any conception of a self to things and persons, whereas monism and nonbuddhists do not
These comments don't make sense in relation to Dolpopa. For him no amount of accuracy with regards to relative truth will lead to the ultimate. For him there is no analytical meditation that leads to a realisation of buddha nature. Yet, ultimate truth is not merely this unfindability it is more and its appearance is perceivable. Further he describes it as self” (bdag, ātman), “permanent” (rtag pa, nitya), “stable” (brtan pa, dhruva), “everlasting” (ther zug), eternal (g.yung drung), and “indestructible” (mi ‘jig pa). It is fine to repeat that there is a distinction here between buddhist and non-buddhist in that buddhist don't accept ultimate truth as self-sufficient but I wonder what actually can be demonstrated in Dolpopa's work. Again, I am not versed in Dolpopa's thought so I'm not saying I have answers just that I think it is complicated and also interesting.