0

Is it reasonable to call these truths, or would it be more reasonable to call them accurate statements from two different frames of reference?

The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness.

The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness, nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither.

.. In that a statement with regards to the ultimate is false from a conditioned frame, and a statement with regards to the conditioned is false from the ultimate frame, how can either one declare any 'satya'?

2

Prasangika-Madhyamika define a truth as whatever is not deceptive in that it appears the way it exists. The opposite of a truth is a falsity.

Ngawang Palden says:

Ultimate truths necessarily are established in accordance with how they appear to the awarenesses to which they clearly appear.

Conventional truths are necessarily falsities. The meaning of falsity is “deceptive,” and the meaning of deceptive is “discordance between the mode of appearance and the mode of abiding.”

Ultimate truths are truths because, in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing them, they appear the way they exist (i.e. empty). On the other hand, conventional truths are falsities and not truths because they appear as inherently existent while they do not exist in this way. Thus, conventional truths are truths only in relation to ignorance. This is because ignorance conceive of them to exist the way they appear.

In Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom by Jeffrey Hopkins, it says:

In saṃvṛtisatya, saṃvṛti means that which obscures, or conceals, reality, and thus saṃvṛtisatya means "that which is a truth for ignorance".

1

Generally speaking, I agree with you, they are more like descriptions from two different standpoints. But I would actually go further and don't even call them "accurate". In my mind, they are just approximations pointing in a certain direction, and when I blend both, I get a sort of 3D-vision in which I see reality as is. This reality is a lot more "real" than these two flat projections, and they can't even come close to capturing it in all its awesome depth.

0

Maybe what Plato described is close to what's happening.

The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness.

Yes, for the people in the cave what is there is just the shadow and it is really empty.

The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither.

For the one outside the cave, when asked by those in the cave to describe what is ultimately real using the shadows and echoes of shadows his answer can only be neither nor...

For those in the cave, it's true that the horse is 10ft tall, and the ultimate truth that it's 4 ft is not true for the cave dwellers.

enter image description here

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.