[Buddha-l] Acting on emptiness

[Richard Hayes]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:56 +0200, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote: 
 
> I disagree: conventional truth is that things do have an intrinsic
> nature.

That is also how I have always understood conventional truth. Moreover,
I have understood Candrakirti as saying that ultimate truth cannot be
expressed in words, since language operates on the assumption that words
are names for intrinsic natures. 

> Our conventions are entirely based on svabhāva's.

That is how I have understood Candrakirti as well. I had quite a long
discussion with Jay Garfield about this. He has not convinced me that
his interpretation of Candrakirti is correct, but I am open to the
possibility that he is right. I need to study the texts with greater
care.

> I think that this is exactly where Nāgārjuna is after. Look at Chapter
> 24, where he's having a ball with some Sarvāstivādaish figure who
> advocates the conventional truth.

As I understand it, the issue is that what a Sarvāstivādin claims to be
ultimate truth (namely, that persons have no intrinsic nature, because a
person is simply a concept imposed on dharmas that do have intrinsic
natures) still counts only as a conventional truth from a Madhyamaka
perspective. Garfield's claim, as I understand it, is that the
ābhidharmikas claims are not truths even conventionally according to
Madhyamakas. The claims of abhidharma are false, since they involve
claims about svabhāvas. 

It's possible that I still do not have Garfield's claims quite right. It
is likely that I do not yet have Candrakirti quite right. It is certain
that it's impossible for anyone to get Nāgārjuna exactly right. He's
just too vague to pin down. (I see him as the Sarah Palin of early
Buddhism; there's just no making good sense of what he says.)


-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico