0

I was reading the SEP article on the two truths

According to the abhidharmakosa:

An entity, the cognition of which does not arise when it is destroyed and, mentally divided, is conventionally existent like a pot and water. Ultimate existence is otherwise

The article adds that:

For a thing to be ultimately real is for that thing to be “foundationally existent” (dravya-sat / rdzas yod)

Does any Buddhist school claim that what arises when it is divided or destroyed, whether or not that exists etc., is the self?

2

According to Tibetan system of tenets, the Vaibhāṣikas so-called 'Hinayana school of tenets' defines an ultimte truth as:

A phenomenon such that an awareness apprehending it is not cancelled if it is broken up or mentally separated into its individual parts.

Illustrations of ultimate truths are:

directionally partless particles, temporally partless [moments of] consciousness, uncompounded phenomena, any of the five aggregates.


Mahayana tenets assert that Vaïbashikas do not posit selflessness of phenomena, but merely [a grosser] selflessness of persons. Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes:

A selflessness of phenomena is not accepted because it is accepted that if it is an established base it is necessarily a self of phenomena.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.