florin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:34 pm
Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:14 pm
florin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:41 pm
And i thought permanence-impermanence are conceptual obscurations only.
Depends on whether one is discussing things from the point of view of the relative or the ultimate. And before you go tossing out the two truths, the
Mdo bcu states:
By means of relative words and syllables
the ultimate is realized to be inexpressible,
therefore, the relative and ultimate are connected.
This is identical to what Nāgarjuna states about the relation between the relative and ultimate in MMK. Also the
Kun byed rgyal po states:
By means of both the ultimate and the relative
both the definitive scriptures and the provisional scriptures
are explained with example, meaning, logical sign, and argument.
Sure .But for me these pasages only make sense with regards to pointing out the connection between the teoretical ideas presented during the oral transmission, where certain ultimate truths are expressed and the ultimate meaning of our nature and how one can connect these ideas with actual experience.
Yes, that is the point.
Since" impermanence " is a concept of sutra i do not see how the above passages point to a connection between conceptuality and the so called experience of "impermanence".
The idea that polarities such as impermanent and permanent are concepts that are not ultimately valid is also a key tenet of Mahāyāna sūtras, and Dzogchen does not go beyond Mahāyāna in this respect.
I do not see how the conceptuaity of " impermanence" can lead one beyond itself where one experiences "impermanence " as "impermanence" without the involvement of the partial mistaken apprehension by the deluded mind .
You are not distinguishing the two kinds of relative. A mind perceiving a conventional truth may be confused about essences (but not necessarily), but it is not confused about aspects. A delusion is confusion about aspects, such as perceiving two moons in the sky, or seeing white as yellow, and so on.
Because a mind that is not confused about aspects may be led to realization through words and meanings, there is no reason to invalidate conventions such as impermanent and so on, since they validly describe conventional phenomena.
What i am trying to say is that "impermanence " becomes a caracteristic, an atribute and i dont see how one can escape that, so in the end impermanence remains a label.
Yes, impermanence is a label we impose upon things we observe which undergo change-- anything that is a product. As long as we do not label impermanent things permanent, or permanent things impermanent, there should be no problem.