The Superiority of Tantra to Sutra

[RongzomFan]

yes the problem is with the 2 truths. The view of emptiness is pretty much the same.

[asunthatneversets]

yes the problem is with the 2 truths. The view of emptiness is pretty much the same.

 

The two truths are a provisional methodology. Just like the aspects of the path in tantra are provisional methods or means. The two truths are not a 'problem' if one knows how to implement them effectively and their nature is properly understood.

[RongzomFan]

The two truths are a provisional methodology.

 

Not in Indian Madhyamaka. They are a core element.

[asunthatneversets]

 

Not in Indian Madhyamaka. They are a core element.

A core element which is a means to an end i.e. a provisional methodology. Ultimate bodhicitta is the sole truth, and not even that 'truth' gets to hang around in the end.

[RongzomFan]

"Hence we can state without error that all phenomena are completley equivalent with illusions, as it is proved eloquently by Rongzom Chökyi Pandita.
This may be frigtening to those who cling to notions of relative and ultimate truth."

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=7867&p=96180&hilit=Rongzom#p96180

Edited February 14, 2014 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

Candrakirti subscribes to the 2 truths.

 

First, Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara VI.23 defines ultimate and relative truth

The object of perfect seeing is true reality,
And false seeing is seeming reality.

 

(True reality is Karl Brunnholzl's translation for ultimate truth in Center of the Sunlit Sky

Seeming reality is Karl B.'s translation for relative truth.)

 

And then in the next verse Candrakirti further defines 2 types of relative truth.

Edited February 14, 2014 by RongzomFan

[asunthatneversets]

"Hence we can state without error that all phenomena are completley equivalent with illusions, as it is proved eloquently by Rongzom Chökyi Pandita.

This may be frigtening to those who cling to notions of relative and ultimate truth."

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=7867&p=96180&hilit=Rongzom#p96180

Yes, Malcolm too makes the case in that thread that 'relative truth' is not an actual truth.

[RongzomFan]

Yes, Malcolm too makes the case in that thread that 'relative truth' is not an actual truth.

 

What do you mean by this?

Edited February 14, 2014 by RongzomFan

[RongzomFan]

The statement "Dzogchen is tantra" is the type of statement that I'd expect from you.

According to standard Nyingma classification, Atiyoga is one of the "3 inner tantras" along with Mahayoga and Anuyoga.

 

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=inner+3+tantras+mahayoga+anuyoga#hl=en&q=inner+3+tantras+mahayoga+anuyoga+atiyoga&tbm=bks

 

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=inner+tantras+mahayoga+anuyoga+atiyoga&safe=off&tbm=bks

[asunthatneversets]

 

What do you mean by this?

Relative truth is judged according to the efficacy of conventional designations and appearances, it (relative truth) is a useful notion, but since those truths cannot withstand analysis, and cannot be found (or verified) when sought, they are not ultimately true.

 

In Madhyamaka, even the ultimate truth [emptiness] is not truly real, so how on earth could relative truths be real?

 

This is why Nāgārjuna states that nirvana is the sole truth, and those who attest otherwise are deluded. And even then, nirvana is not ultimately veridical either, demonstrated by Nāgārjuna in his analysis of liberation and the tathāgata in his Mulamadhyamakakārika.

[RongzomFan]

Relative truth is judged according to the efficacy of conventional designations and appearances, it (relative truth) is a useful notion, but since those truths cannot withstand analysis, and cannot be found (or verified) when sought, they are not ultimately true.

 

In Madhyamaka, even the ultimate truth [emptiness] is not truly real, so how on earth could relative truths be real?

 

This is why Nāgārjuna states that nirvana is the sole truth, and those who attest otherwise are deluded. And even then, nirvana is not ultimately veridical either, demonstrated by Nāgārjuna in his analysis of liberation and the tathāgata in his Mulamadhyamakakārika.

No, I mean where does Malcolm speak about this in the thread.

[RongzomFan]

but since those truths cannot withstand analysis, and cannot be found (or verified) when sought, they are not ultimately true.

No shit.

 

Rongzom says this himself about Madhyamaka.

[asunthatneversets]

No shit.

 

Rongzom says this himself about Madhyamaka.

Madhyamaka says this about madhyamaka.

[RongzomFan]

Madhyamaka says this about madhyamaka.

 

No shit.

 

I just quoted Candrakirti above.

 

Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara VI.23 defines ultimate and relative truth

 

The object of perfect seeing is true reality,

And false seeing is seeming reality.

 

 

(True reality is Karl Brunnholzl's translation for ultimate truth in Center of the Sunlit Sky

 

Seeming reality is Karl B.'s translation for relative truth.)

Edited February 14, 2014 by RongzomFan

[asunthatneversets]

No, I mean where does Malcolm speak about this in the thread.

He discusses the fact that fire circles are no more valid or invalid than the firebrand which makes them.

[RongzomFan]

Nobody is arguing for some kind of real actual relative truth.

 

This is a strawman you are presenting

[asunthatneversets]

Nobody is arguing for some kind of real actual relative truth.

 

This is a strawman you are presenting

So then what is the issue? If relative truth is just a skillful means, then aside from its implementation in the Madhyamaka praxis it holds no weight.

 

It is a raft to be abandoned.

Edited February 14, 2014 by asunthatneversets

[RongzomFan]

The problem is that you just want to lecture others on what a relative truth is, instead of listening.

 

Like I said on page 6, I understand what a relative truth is per Candrakirit.

[RongzomFan]

A relative truth is an object of deluded cognition.

 

We all get it.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=40#p77631

[asunthatneversets]

The problem is that you just want to lecture others on what a relative truth is, instead of listening.

Projection of the shadow.

[themiddleway]

Anyone read this guy ..? http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/not-two-truths.html

[Anderson]

A relative truth is an object of deluded cognition.

 

We all get it.

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=6423&start=40#p77631

 

 

I was just about to say that i would like to see a demonstration of how the 4 principles of reasoning apply in Rongzom's view until i saw the demonstration given by Malcolm which does an excellent job.

 

However i would still like to see how these 4 principles apply to entities , in a demonstration where the intrinsic nature, the efficacy...etc.., are shown one by one..

Unfortunately in Establishing Appearances as Divine these principles are only mentioned with the view to explain what they do and how Rongzom see their application but i couldn't find yet an concrete example of how they apply.

Can you recommend something where these principles are explained in detail and how are they applied ?

Edited February 14, 2014 by Anderson

[yabyum24]

Anyone read this guy ..? http://jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/not-two-truths.html

Spot on. Here's a guys who has the balls to point out that the Emperor is naked. This has been a major gripe of mine for ages too. He's summed it up perfectly. Absolutely nailed it.

[idiot_stimpy]

A scholar needs to cross a swiftly flowing river.

He is pleased to see that there is a ferry. He climbs on board and he and the ferryman set off into the current.

'How long will the crossing take ? ' Inquires the scholar.

' Depends ' replies the ferryman. ' with the current as strong as what it is it will take a while. '

' Did you never study grammar ? ' asks the scholar. The ferryman replies in the negative .

'Then you have wasted half your life' snorts the scholar.

A few minutes later the ferry is driven onto rocks by the fierce currents.

'Did you ever learn to swim ' asks the ferryman. 'No' replies the scholar.

'Then you have wasted all yours because we are sinking.'

[Simple_Jack]

I was just about to say that i would like to see a demonstration of how the 4 principles of reasoning apply in Rongzom's view until i saw the demonstration given by Malcolm which does an excellent job.

 

However i would still like to see how these 4 principles apply to entities , in a demonstration where the intrinsic nature, the efficacy...etc.., are shown one by one..

Unfortunately in Establishing Appearances as Divine these principles are only mentioned with the view to explain what they do and how Rongzom see their application but i couldn't find yet an concrete example of how they apply.

Can you recommend something where these principles are explained in detail and how are they applied ?

 

There's Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning or you can check out Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso's Stars of Wisdom: Analytical Meditation, Songs of Yogic Joy, And Prayers of Aspiration -- http://books.google.com/books?id=vJVDCUcwirgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. There's always Sutra Mahamudra -- http://thetaobums.com/topic/33394-meditation-on-the-nature-of-thoughtsappearances/

 

Spot on. Here's a guys who has the balls to point out that the Emperor is naked. This has been a major gripe of mine for ages too. He's summed it up perfectly. Absolutely nailed it.

 

The context of Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka was to correct the crypto-realism of the abhidharma-kosha. If someone doesn't want the "two truths", to muddy up the presentation of prajnaparamita, then they can always read the Prajnaparamita Sutras as translated by Edward Conze. Although, if that someone is a realist (Buddhist definition), then there's a good chance they will scream "Nihilism!"

 

 

A scholar needs to cross a swiftly flowing river.

He is pleased to see that there is a ferry. He climbs on board and he and the ferryman set off into the current.

'How long will the crossing take ? ' Inquires the scholar.

' Depends ' replies the ferryman. ' with the current as strong as what it is it will take a while. '

' Did you never study grammar ? ' asks the scholar. The ferryman replies in the negative .

'Then you have wasted half your life' snorts the scholar.

A few minutes later the ferry is driven onto rocks by the fierce currents.

'Did you ever learn to swim ' asks the ferryman. 'No' replies the scholar.

'Then you have wasted all yours because we are sinking.'

 

Hopefully, you're not advocating going to the other extreme of anti-intellectualism, by posting this. There should be a middle ground where theory and practice meets. Believe it or not, it's your choice, this is feasible in actuality.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Simple_Jack