Instead, they would say that imputation must be valid, which means that there can't exist another valid mind which can contradict the imputation.
But if public opinion is not valid – it means that there is mind which is valid and contradicts the public opinion. How do you prove the validness of this second mind?
imputation doesn't mean just public opinion.
Yes, but I’m focusing more on this narrow subject “validness” (the state or condition of being valid, or in a simple words - unmistaken answer to a question “how do we know that this is this and not that?”). “Imputation” is different subject. These 2 subjects have 4 possibilities:
1. smth which is valid and imputation: valid imputation
2. smth which is valid but not imputation: valid reason
3. smth whis is not valid but is a imputation: mistaken imputation
4. smth which is not valid and not a imputation: mistaken reason
Jamgon-la, in fact that is not about 2 truths. It is about 1 ultimate truth. If smth exists by mere imputation – it cannot exist inherently. And if smth exists inherently – it cannot exist by mere imputation. It is controversial or mutually exclusive (‘gal ba). So, when we analyze how things exist ultimately we find that they exists by mere imputation.
Completely agree on what you write about the 2 truths. I have focused slightly on a specific aspect – validness(unmistaken answer to a question “how do we know that this is this and not that?”).
If there is a dependence on imputation, then question comes: what is the criteria of validness? How do you know that this imputation is valid and that imputation is not valid?
As Boris write about valid imputation: there can't exist another valid mind which can contradict the imputation.
So, only criteria of validness of imputation – absence of other valid mind which is in contradiction with 1st imputation. But in the situation when we have 2 minds with the opposite or controversial imputations - how do we define which is valid and which is not?