gad rgyangs wrote:
Namdrol wrote:So in other words, he is starting with what the opponenet takes as real, correct?
In this case, how is this a) his beleif b) a philosophical position of his? The answer is, actually, they are not his beleif nor his philosophical position.
He's accepting the validity of the two truths scheme, which (he says) is what Buddhas rely on to teach "truth". He would have to maintain either that he has already demonstrated the validity of this schema through his argumentation earlier in the book, or that he's accepting it on faith since Buddhas rely on it. In either case, its a philosophical position.
But if he does not accept the validity of conventional truth (he does not) how can you say he is erecting a philosophical position around the two truths?
Remember, he states "Since the Jinas have proclaimed nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not understand the rest is false?"
The two truths, are for Nāgārjuna merely a pragmatic methodology used by Buddhas to lead sentient beings from delusion to non-delusion. But they are not a philosophical system, at least, not for Nagarjuna and Aryadeva. In other words, if anything, the two truths are a pedagogical method, and that is all.