@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
The world exist, we exist, our mind exist, but our mind finds it impossible to access the world's essence or true nature directly - we are only able to access phenomena. Therefore truth comes from arguing with the world and with others, and we are never sure of any truth anyway. Does that make sense?
Now your turn. I am aware that there are different types or sects of Buddhism. There are probably also different philosophies. Which is yours, in a nutshell?
The purpose of Mahayana Buddhism is to be motivated to show all sentient beings how to put an end to suffering. First one needs to put an end to one's own suffering in order to know how to explain it to others who ask (and only those who ask). So the motivation is one of compassion for all those that suffer. The paradox is that in the Heart Sutra it say, 'There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no ending of suffering and no path to the ending of suffering.' So as a Buddhist one needs to understand what the Buddha can mean when he says, 'All is suffering' and when he also says what he said above about there being no suffering.
In debates I would use the philosophy called, Prasaṅgika Mādhyamaka but in retreat I'd use something else but that is not important as this is not a retreat but is like a debate.
The way I'd explain it in a nutshell is: The Prasangika does not have any argument with ordinary people who have not come to some view based on philosophical analysis. The result is that everyday life can be lived in the same way as ordinary people live it.
The Prasangika show that all philosophical views are ultimately incorrect but the absence of those views is not a position in itself. Technically it is called, 'non-affirming negation.'
For example:
If someone says the world exists then Prasangika would show that if the word 'exists' is defined correctly then the world cannot be said to exist but that does not automatically mean that appearances are non-existent. If someone said the world is non-existent then if the word 'non-existent' is defined correctly then the world cannot be said to be non-existent but that does not automatically mean that appearances are existent. If someone say they are both existent and non-existent or exist and become non-existent then Prasangika would say that if you can't find either individually then you can't combine them. If someone says that the world is something other than these three possibilities then the Prasangika would ask them to explain what that alternative is and refute that alternative. If some said 'I don't know' then that would be the same as the view of an ordinary person... who also doesn't know and so the Prasangika would have no argument with them.
This link may help but the above is in my own words and not from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasa%E1%B9%85gika
The technique of the Prasangika, is only an attempt to use words to show what reality isn't. Reality's true nature is only understood via meditation. The words and concepts are used to undermine clinging to words and concepts so that which is beyond them is no longer ignored due to one's attention being on those mistaken views... this ends suffering... or reveals bliss that's free from suffering and always has been.
So, in a nutshell the Prasangika don't have a philosophical position they refute other philosophical positions... and don't argue with those that don't have a philosophical position. If there isn't someone to argue with, they do it in the form of a dialectic.
