Pema Rigdzin wrote:
As a further example of your blanket statements, I'll continue to use your own words: "it is a matter of assessing the skillfulness of concepts. If the aim is to liberate all beings then from my point of view the "exegesis emphasizing emptiness" is the "exegesis" of choice."
Here it reads "from my point of view". How can you assert this to be a "blanket statement"?
In this statement, you said that "from your point of view," if one aims to liberate all
beings, the exegesis of choice is that which emphasizes emptiness (Prasangika-Madhyamaka). If one understands English, your statement makes clear that the only thing about it that is "from your point of view" is that Prasangika is the method of choice for all
beings, which would contradict your admission that certain provisional teachings are necessary for certain beings, and that they are skillful because they do in fact act as a step to steer beings closer to a correct view. So perhaps the above is just a miscommunication and you didn't actually mean that Prasangika is the exegesis of choice for all
beings, but simply for those who are ready for it and have the capacity for it. If that's the case, then we agree and I'd just ask you to consider more carefully how you say certain things so that what you mean = what you say.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Here especially, I'm trying to honestly debate you by trying to ascertain and focus on the core of your actual position.
Assertions should be dialectically traceable.
One may assert everything and obscure reason with some alleged meditational experience.
See if your meditation proves yourself that your view is right then you can be content with that.
Or do you want to argue in a way like "I am right and you are wrong because my view is based on my meditational expirience"? Or "My gurus said this and he is a good meditator and if others do not agree then it is just because they are bad meditators"
I trust that you would not want to consider such "reasoning" "honestly debating".
Here you are just assuming my intentions. Actually, I wasn't prepared to bring my own meditational experience into the debate. I was attempting to determine whether you are under the impression that the meditations of an adherent to Prasangika and an adherent to buddha nature are somehow different, i.e. whether one's meditation is free of extremes while the other is not. Can we agree that one's authentic view during meditation and what is thought and said in post-meditation are two entirely different things? Is it possible, in your opinion, for a Prasangika and a buddha nature exponent to have exactly the same non-conceptual meditation beyond all extremes yet present the path to others from differing angles in their post-meditation?
Really I have already addressed this to conebeckam and would like to address this to you, too:
It is not about who is right and who is wrong.
It is about different approaches.
About this we will always be able to genuinely agree.