Editing Chandrakirti (section)

==== The nature of conventional truth ====
The conventional is the "domain of mundane cognitive process, and is readily accessible for ordinary beings" according to Sonam Thakchoe.<ref name=":7" /> The conventional truth can be contrasted with conventional falsehood based on erroneous cognitions.<ref name=":5" /> Correct cognition is differentiated from false cognitions by sense faculties that are not impaired. A related distinction which Chandrakirti makes is that between worldly conventions (''lokasaṃvṛti''), which are epistemically reliable from the point of view of ordinary beings and conventions that do not reflect the world (''alokasaṃvṛti)'' and are thus deceptive even by worldly standards.<ref name=":7" />

"Conventional" ''(saṁvṛti)'' can also mean "covering" according to Chandrakirti and is also associated with delusion or ignorance ([[Avidyā (Buddhism)|''avidyā'']]).<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":7" /> Furthermore, he also glosses the term as codependent (''paraparasaṃbhavana)'' and as being signified ''(saṁket)'' or worldly convention ''(lokavyavahāra).<ref name=":7" />''

The conventional truth, especially as experienced by ordinary people (who reify reality), is a concealing and deluded kind of truth which may act as an obstacle to understanding the ultimate.<ref name=":4">Hayes 2019</ref>''<ref name=":7" />'' From the ultimate point of view in fact, ''saṁvṛtisatya'' is not really true.<ref name=":5" /> Indeed, Chandrakirti explains that conventional phenomena are illusory and unreal and can be compared to a [[mirage]]. The only difference is that conventional phenomena have some causal efficacy from the mundane point of view (for example, water can help a thirsty person, a mirage cannot)''.<ref name=":7" />''

Furthermore, these conventional phenomena are to be differentiated from conventionally illusory entities, such as intrinsic natures or essences that are imputed on to things (which do not exist at all, even conventionally) and conventionally unreal entities (like the horns of a rabbit, which also do not exist at all)''.<ref name=":7" />'' The main difference between these latter two unreal phenomena is that the conventionally unreal entities are understood to be unreal by ordinary people, whereas intrinsic nature is not understood to be unreal by ordinary persons. Instead, ordinary persons impute intrinsic nature on to conventional phenomena (such as water etc.) and perceive them as being intrinsically real (only noble beings realize that this is illusory). As such, intrinsic nature is a conceptual fiction in the minds of ordinary beings.''<ref name=":7" />''

In spite of the unreality of the conventional, Chandrakirti states that the Buddha taught using language and conventional expressions as a way to guide people to the ultimate truth, which is beyond language and cannot be expressed through words.<ref name=":4" />

For Chandrakirti, the way that ordinary beings experience the conventional is very different from the way that awakened saints or noble beings (''āryas'') experience the conventional. Chandrakirti introduced the concept of ''mere convention'' (Tibetan: ''kun rdzob tsam'') to refer to how noble ones experience conventionality, which is quite different to what is held to be ''conventionally real'' or ''conventional true'' (''kun rdzob bden pa''). Ordinary beings grasp at and misconstrue phenomena as being intrinsically real, thus they experience conventional ''reality.'' Enlightened beings meanwhile, only experience a non-reified kind of appearance, which is perceived as being an unreal construct, like a reflected image.<ref name=":7" />''