Does habitual common sense use of words tell us *nothing* about the real? Can habitual ways of speaking embedded in a culture’s literature be so easily dismissed? Not that we can just read off the structure of reality from common speech, but I wouldn’t be quite so dismissive!
-
-
-
Dharmakīrti is arguing against reading the structure of reality off of Sanskrit grammar. For him, language is entirely conventional. But he's not dismissive of convention as such; on the contrary, he thinks it's crucial.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
...and yet the above quoted, and your act of quoting it, escapes this 'stupidity'...? If it does, then contradiction of the former; if it doesn't, then contradiction of itself. Not that I mind contradiction, for one.
-
The quoting does (because quoting ≠ asserting); the quote may too, in context (see the exchange with
@non_buddhism ) - 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Ha! This has a big exclamation point in the margin of my copy as well

-
This is what I am interested in. It seems the language we use is connected to the perfuming process and the bija (Ming-yan-xi-qi 名言习气). Unfortunately, I am still struggling to grasp the full picture of Xuanzang's work.pic.twitter.com/q7mafWnclL
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
nice exchanges. fascinated by the puzzle of how i might align a response like "language is part of a process of translucence in reality which apparently can do no more than seek its ground. the light is real (no efficacy w/out that), tho not absolute." must replace seek w found?
-
ps: "must replace seek w found?" meant to emphasize the apparent challenge to me in that alignment. different tack: how has Dharmakirti's approach handled the interface btwn language & the ideality of logic? eg Husserl vs Mill. maybe that's not a natural Q in D's habitat?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.