[Sxedlawb]

Here we have the crux of the issue with the philosophy of the Two Truths. It is predicated on a statement of existence which has no basis in fact. It's like saying that 'unicorns never existed' - well who ever said they did?

In the same way the notion of an unchanging "inherent existence" is put up for demolition. Well who ever said that things exist / don't exist in this manner? We have a speculative ontology here and nothing more than that, despite the rigorous logic of debating philosophers. The concluding 'emptiness' which necessarily follows from this 'analytical process' is merely a logical construction. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddha's realisation of Sunyata, which was direct, non-dual and non-discursive.

Okay, it has its uses insomuch as some sects may have insisted on an unchanging atman. It points out the folly of such a position. It also points out the inconsistencies of other Buddhist sects who were likewise wandering into territory Buddha never entered. But it remedies this problem by engaging on the same terms as those erroneous debaters and thus becomes locked into the same paradigm - the assumption of an ultimate basis. It is a handy didactical device designed to win debates, not establish a position on an ultimate state - which was something Buddha assiduously avoided.



The above statements are likewise predicated on the logician's device of "inherent existence".


I completely agree here! But emptiness was discovered by Buddha, not devised in debate. It was a significant discovery as it enabled him to go much further than other mendicants of his day in gaining unbinding. Why? Because in all cases where an "ultimate state" is presupposed (even an ultimate state of emptiness), there will be clinging to it at the point where the contemplative assumes that he has encountered it. There are no limits to Buddha's liberation, therefore any such clinging would be detrimental to this unbinding.

Namaste
Kris

Hi Kris;

As one schooled in the same set of philosophical underpinning laid out rather (too?) meticulously by Takso, I find myself in general agreement with your critique, though my take is slightly different. I've never regarding the two truths as an assertion of some kind of positive unshakable definitive reality (nor does Takso, I'd imagine). They are debating tools, which effectively refute eternalist and nihilist arguments; they are tools for debate within one's own mind as well...for challenging it's knee-jerk eternalist (mainly) beliefs; and they are ways of understanding teachings such as the Heart Sutra, for example.

If the purpose of creating these debating tools is to systematically engage/debate our own mind, then it's fair to say that they have the effect of weakening one's adherence to what has always seemed clear and obvious to most sentient beings---that things truly exist; that "I" truly exist; that my happiness depends on getting "stuff" and obtaining positive emotional states and the good feelings that flow from having them, and on hanging on to them. If the "me" that holds firmly to these tenets is confronted with these arguments about true existence the logical component of me may well adapt this presentation of emptiness as their own system. For example, one may come to understand that the concept of a permanent and unchanging soul is false and cease holding to it.

Whatever weakens clinging to self and outer phenomena is a good thing. However this is both a blessing and a potential curse. Gaining some understanding of madyamika prasangika is not only completely ineffective in protecting one from engaging in nonstop perceptual error that characterizes "pervasive" suffering; thinking that one has moved closer to perceiving emptiness directly based on having an intellectual understanding of it can actually become a source of pride and arrogance which brings that practitioner further and further away from the goal of Buddhism---to remove fundamental ignorance through non-conceptual discernment, and, with it, all suffering. It may also turn one away from engaging in the study of all the preliminary subjects, in developing a good heart, in generating a real palpable disgust for Samsara, in recognizing one's own negative minds and working to tame them, in developing meditation skills, etc. One may feel that, possessing the highest teachings, there's little need for anything else other than to contemplate and expound on them. It also makes it more difficult to meditate properly on emptiness when one goes in thinking that they've solved the problem of existence. and all they need to do it apply it in meditation. It's not like that at all.

Why is that?

A logical construct has no power to destroy grasping to self, to existence, to objects, to pleasant feelings, and the like, even when that construct conceptually obliterates the true existence of all of the above. That's because that construct isn't part of one's actual tenet system. What one feel on any moment, what one discriminates in that moment, what intention one formulates in that moment---these are the indicia of one's tenet system. You can expound on and sincerely believe every word of Nagarjuna's 70 stanzas on emptiness; you can prove that the person walking across the floor towards you with the knife lacks inherent existence, that there is no walking due to lack of effective cause and effect, and no "knife wielder"; yet existential fear will quickly envelop ANY such person, unless they have directly perceived emptiness, and have given up all clinging to existence. One's own actual tenet system is so deeply entrenched that no amount of logic can overcome it. That's why when Je Tsongkhapa, who had already published great works on "Emptiness" asked Manjusri (well...the vision of Manjusri, at least) what level of practice he was on he was told rather curtly "you're not even lower scope". Practice can remove the deepest and most ingrained tendencies of the mind by achieving nonconceptual discernment, which shatters all of those fabrications---it reveals truth, nakedly, that can't be denied, like a light showing an object in a previously dark room. Je Tsonkhapa was advised to practice, do retreats, do preliminaries, etc. Only after years of practice is it said that he saw emptiness directly. This was a good 20 years after he'd become one of the greatest Emptiness scholars of Tibet.

Since all this is theory, dependent upon reasoning, no matter how perfect a reason is posited, no matter how well the reason applies to the assertion, it is of absolutely no value in terms of its liberative capability without the ability to attain deep meditative absorption and apply analysis within that absorption and achieve non-conceptual discernment. That is to say, discernment of emptiness---the experience of not-finding a truly existing self or object after earnestly looking for it in every possible way, is the only way for the mind to come around to accepting selflessness of self or selflessness of object. And I'd go even further and state that, if one were to attempt to apply the conclusions of any of the statements made by Takso (which I'm not disputing in the least, btw), in meditation; if one were to examine an object and look for it's lack of something, look for it's inherent malleability, from whence all phenomena can appear, they would never achieve the direct yogic perception of emptiness, because they would be attempting to drag conceptual notion into a non-conceptual state of mind. In a sense, they would be attempting to "cancel" appearing phenomena...to view it as something less than it appears to be; they would be attempting to engraft their conceptual view of reality on what is clearly NOT a view---on direct perception of reality.

So, you never perceive emptiness non-conceptually if you look for something's emptiness; you can achieve the direct perception of emptiness if you examine what appears in your mind and try to establish it as truly existent and are totally honest about your motive; that is, your motive should be to find a self that really does/could/did exist. Make your best case for true existence, examining the consequences if that were so.