Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
It doesn't seem like you are.
Prāsaṅgika is a subschool of Madhyamaka, which asserts that all concrete and mental phenomena, although existing conventionally, are empty of any type of inherent identity or self-characterizing essence.
|
No contradiction. 'existing convetionally" means existing only through imputation. And 'empty of any type of inherent identity or self-characterizing essence' means 'empty of inherent existence'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
It is possible to not realize Buddha Nature after the introduction... Which is exactly what I said you have not realized... A big difference  |
Putting 'Buddha Nature' aside, awareness cannot be realized. Why? Because it is no object.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
That experience is not emptiness... you still don't get that..
|
I am applying consistent linguistic expressions. How can you say 'that experience is or is not' when seeing my empty words? you just see concatenations of signs with no inherent meaning. It is your consciousness that synthesizes the meaning.
All you can do is to check whether I am applying words consistently.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
Please share some examples.
|
Too much effort, sorry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
That is the conventional view.. emptiness is not something perceived, nor something viewed because of the absence of appearances  |
That's nonsens. Don't you see the screen of your tablet, laptop or the like? Don't you see the words that you are reading? And you claim that appearances of phenomena are absent?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
You are stuck on the conventional, intellectual understanding and trying to apply that to a realization you haven't experienced.. which is why you keep saying things which are not correct.
|
Currently I am applying language consistently and I am applying language that refers to philosophical analysis and its conclusions to which correspond experiences.
When I am writing in the context of dzogchen I am also applying words consistently but then I am applying a language that uses similes, metaphors to refer to awareness but neither to philosophical analysis nor to experiences.
So there are just different types of language depending on context.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jonesboy
Or you could post some relevant points to help with the understanding.
|
Too much effort, sorry.