Relative and Absolute Reality - or the reality of the "despicable neighbor"

[KhyungMar]

@Steve_Gleason

@KhyungMar

What does it mean? Does it not mean, that to live conventionally and to perceive the world conventionally, is to reify?

I believe that it does mean that.

@KhyungMar

Yes, if one reifies the „awful job“ or the „despicable neighbor“ then they exist, but only conventionally, not ultimately.

So I understand Tsongkapha: ultimately the „despicable neighbor“ does not exist, but at the same time, if one reifies him/her, the neighbor exists conventionally (by reification).

I would clarify that by pointing out that the “despicable neighbor” does not exist as such in the ultimate sense because he has no inherent true self nature. In that perspective he is empty…even though he still exists. We need to take care that we don’t drift from the middle way and into a nihilistic perspective right? He only becomes the “despicable neighbor” when he is reified (or conditioned) as such in the conventional sense.

It’s worth it to take a close look here: this was not a nihilsm.
Nihilsm would be to deny even relative reality its’ reality. It is real - but, only relatively.

Now this is not a play of words: The “despicable neighbor” exists as a mental representational entity in my mind, thus it exists relative to my mind.
To other minds, the same physical phenomenon might exist relatively as a loving father, etc.

So per definition, relative reality exists only in relative perspective.
And absolute reality exists in independance of relative perspective.

Aren’t we constantly reifying a conglomerate of mental constructs of the world, made up of “despicable neighbors”, things we absolutely need to be happy, things we absolutely try to avoid because we think they make us unhappy?
Isn’t this the relative reality?
Understanding this relative reality of samsara as “relative” - i.e. not absolutely real - allows us to de-reify those mental constructs which cause us pain due to our relative relationships to them.

It would be nihilism to say they do not exist at all, but to understand that they are relative and dependant to our conditioned mind takes the “bite” out of those mental constructs.

@Steve_Gleason

For me, the important takeaway is that both conventional (form) and ultimate (empty) perspectives are required if we are to remain in the middle way. In his book “Emptiness”, Guy Armstrong says that, “Ultimate truth cannot be pointed to without using conventional language.” He goes on to quote Nagarjuna:

The Dharma taught by the Buddha relies on two truths:
The conventional truths of the world and the ultimate truth.
Those who do not understand how they differ
Do not understand the profound teaching of the Buddha.
Without using conventional truth, the ultimate truth cannot be disclosed

Yes, I see no disagreement with that. I’ll share a recent lucid dream from two days ago as an analogy:

I become lucid in the dream. I am in a type of sewer system, but more of a rain water drainage system, nothing yucky. I look up and see an iron grill which blocks my path towards the surface. I stick my hands through the grill but it is solid. I say “This is a dream, this grill is not real”. The solidty vanishes instantly and I travel up to the surface.

In my relative reality, the grill was (intially) solid.
In absolute reality, it was a dream-grill and therefore ultimately not solid.

If I would have been unlucid, the realive reality of the grill would have stayed solid, although it was ultimately a dream-grill which has no solid reality!

Thus it is not an extremism (nihilism) to see through the relative reality of mental phenomena, even during daytime.

This view should not be misunderstood to mean that the physicality/causality of daytime phenomena have no effect on a sentient being.
A moving truck will still hit me, if I jump in front of it, even though the truck is a relative phenomenon.

[Steve_Gleason]

@KhyungMar

“This is a dream, this grill is not real”. The solidty vanishes instantly and I travel up to the surface."

Love this. I think this is the incredible value of lucid dreaming as it relates to the waking state because…

Understanding this relative reality of samsara as “relative” - i.e. not absolutely real - allows us to de-reify those mental constructs which cause us pain due to our relative relationships to them.

@KhyungMar

So per definition, relative reality exists only in relative perspective.
And absolute reality exists in independance of relative perspective.

I need to ponder this a bit more. I might paraphrase it as:

Conventional reality (form) exists only in relative perspective.
Absolute reality is empty of relative perspective.

As you may be able to tell from my recent posts, I am trying hard to wrap my head around those Heart Sutra lines:

Form is Emptiness
Emptiness is Form

Just when I think I have them cornered…they keep slipping away.

[_Barry]

@Steve_Gleason

Conventional reality (form) exists only in relative perspective.
Absolute reality is empty of relative perspective.

@Steve_Gleason

Just when I think I have them cornered…they keep slipping away.

It’s like trying to grasp the gaps . . .