John Tan wrote:
Ling Yin One of the biggest issue about freedom from all elaborations/conceptualities is the idea of what the Tibetan Buddhism meant by "conceptualities". They don't actually mean by what western thoughts or how we commonly understand -- a symbolic layer over "something". It actually meant imputed designation that is closely linked to self-nature.
So when u hear "conceptualities" always link to self-nature. That is y whenever explanations r made by Tibetan teachers, they always ended up explaining and relating to self-nature when they explain "conceptualities".
Even Mipham or Longchenpa I realized they r actually talking about that. I just hope one day this can be made clear by teachers as well as translators as it is extremely misleading to separate "conceptualities" from "self-nature" in these (Tibetan) teachings.