[Buddha-l] Acting on emptiness

[Richard Hayes]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:49 -0700, Dee wrote:

> Ultimate truth is that things have no intrinsic nature. Conventional
> truth is that things appear due to causes and conditions.

Yes, this was Garfield's claim. The two truths are exactly the same,
since both of these statements can be expressed in the same words: "all
things are empty."  
 
> The precise relationship between the two truths has been the subject
> of debate for centuries, not just amongst modern scholars. To say
> ‘there is not even the slightest difference between nirvana and
> samsara’ is true from the perspective of ultimate truth. It would
> therefore seem to set a precedent for saying that ‘conventional truth
> just is ultimate truth.’ This has also been said by many Tibetan
> scholars, notably none of which has belonged to the Gelugpa tradition.

On Sunday night I had a long conversation with a rNying-ma bla-ma. His
claim was that Garfield's position is the standard rNying-ma position.
His view was that dGe-lugs tend to hold a position much more like the
one that Erik Hoogcarspel outlined. I am completely ignorant of Tibetan
Buddhism, so I have no opinion on the matter of who said what when, but
I know a little bit about Indian Buddhism. Garfield's position is
unfamiliar to me; I have not knowingly encountered it in Indian
Madhyamaka.
 
> Just a few thoughts, but you all seem to agree with each other too
> often, so I thought I would throw that in there.

I agree with everyone. That is my nature. That's why Lusthaus calls me
an ell-wriggler. Of course, he's wrong about that.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico