Rebirth and endless time

[ground]

However in the context of direct "perception"/"experience" it is not established at all.

Not so. There is no possibility of mundane sensory direct perception without consciousness.

There is no direct perception that is "mundane".

This has already been conventionally established whether you comprehend it or not.

Be that "conventionally established" for you.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

There is no direct perception that is "mundane".

Of course there is. Any sensory consciousness of an unenlightened worldling is mundane direct perception.

Be that "conventionally established" for you.

Your unwillingness to accept very straightforward Buddhist tenets associated with conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda) is your issue, not mine.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

There is no direct perception that is "mundane".

Of course there is. Any sensory consciousness of an unenlightened worldling is mundane direct perception.

No, if there is no instruction there cannot be direct perception but delusion.

Be that "conventionally established" for you.

Your unwillingness to accept very straightforward Buddhist tenets associated with conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda) is your issue, not mine.

You have demonstrated very clearly the principle of conditioned arising: With the arising of "that" (and the concomitant lack of "this") there is the arising of "something else".

Kind regards

[Jnana]

No, if there is no instruction there cannot be direct perception but delusion.

Mundane direct perception doesn't preclude delusion. Mingyur, you have previously said that you are unwilling to accept the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises as scriptural authority. Now it seems that you are unwilling to accept conventional direct perception and inference as valid cognitions. Good luck with that.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

No, if there is no instruction there cannot be direct perception but delusion.

Mundane direct perception doesn't preclude delusion.

The convention I am following here is that of Dharmakirti "Direct perception is free from constructive thought and is non-delusory". There is no differentiation between "mundane" and "non-mundane" but there are different categories.

Mingyur, you have previously said that you are unwilling to accept the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises as scriptural authority.

This is not true. But this is a topic of śábda--pramāṇa. And this topic has to deal with the question "to what extent and in what context and under what conditions can there be something like śábda--pramāṇa?"

Now it seems that you are unwilling to accept conventional direct perception and inference as valid cognitions.

I accept direct perception (which is never "conventional" in the sense of "mundane" or "worldly") and inference based on that.

Kind regards

[Rael]

Of course there is. Any sensory consciousness of an unenlightened worldling is mundane direct perception.


Your unwillingness to accept very straightforward Buddhist tenets associated with conditioned arising (pratītyasamutpāda) is your issue, not mine.

All the best,

Geoff

Any sensory consciousness of an unenlightened worldling is mundane direct perception

soooo like when the unenlightened "worldling" becomes enlightened his sensory consciousness no longer has the ability to process "mundane direct perception". Something else happens to seeing the tree..it no longer is a tree...my beautiful Mozart no longer sounds the same....

thats just silly...

your taking things to a level of what you think enlightenment is and it's dangerous....

[Jnana]

The convention I am following here is that of Dharmakirti "Direct perception is free from constructive thought and is non-delusory". There is no differentiation between "mundane" and "non-mundane" but there are different categories.

The term in question is abhrānta: non-erroneous. Error is explained by Dharmakīrti as being cases caused by color-blindness, rapid movement, traveling in a boat, hallucinations, etc. The qualification of "non-erroneous" has nothing to do with a cognition being supramundane. Sense perception pertains to worldly life (sāṃvyavahārika), not the ultimate (paramātha).

I accept direct perception (which is never "conventional" in the sense of "mundane" or "worldly") and inference based on that.

What we have been discussing is the sense perception subset of direct perception. For a mādhyamika sense perception is always conventional, because the object of sense perception -- the unique particular (svalakṣaṇa) -- is not ultimately established. Thus, the sense perception subset of direct perception is not the same as the yogic perception (yogipratyakṣa) subset of direct perception.

All the best,

Geoff

[Jnana]

soooo like when the unenlightened "worldling" becomes enlightened his sensory consciousness no longer has the ability to process "mundane direct perception".

Reality is discerned via supramundane gnosis (lokottarajñāna), not consciousness (vijñāna).

your taking things to a level of what you think enlightenment is and it's dangerous....

What is dangerous is not understanding the two truths and thereby mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation.

All the best,

Geoff

[Rael]

soooo like when the unenlightened "worldling" becomes enlightened his sensory consciousness no longer has the ability to process "mundane direct perception".

Reality is discerned via supramundane gnosis (lokottarajñāna), not consciousness (vijñāna).

your taking things to a level of what you think enlightenment is and it's dangerous....

What is dangerous is not understanding the two truths and thereby mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation.

All the best,

Geoff

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH
DUDE!!!

you are telling me i am mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation, as a response to my response .....thats borderline insulting...


thats just deciding what i said cause you don't even know what you are saying...

lol...

your tossing out terms for the sake of typing....

just because you can post doesn't mean you have to....

don't do this to me please....

[Jnana]

you are telling me i am mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation, as a response to my response .....thats borderline insulting...

No need to take what was posted personally. To further clarify: There is nothing "dangerous" about understanding what buddhahood entails based on the traditional Mahāyāna treatises. What is dangerous is not understanding the two truths and thereby mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation. What is silly and uncalled for is pointless diversion masquerading as witty iconoclasm or profound transgression.

All the best,

Geoff

[Rael]

you are telling me i am mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation, as a response to my response .....thats borderline insulting...

No need to take what was posted personally. To further clarify: There is nothing "dangerous" about understanding what buddhahood entails based on the traditional Mahāyāna treatises. What is dangerous is not understanding the two truths and thereby mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation. What is silly and uncalled for is pointless diversion masquerading as witty iconoclasm or profound transgression.

All the best,

Geoff

mistaking deluded cognitions for liberation...

there you go again...

you don't really practice do you?

when you experience some of what is needed to start down the Vajrayana path you won't be so concerned about cognition...

i don't really care about cognition , or what ever you use to gather perceptions of this sundry mundane existence...
i'm not into mindless babble about perceptions of mundane wroldlings...lol...worldlings isn't even a word...it's like something a Vulcan would say on acid....

you telling me i am telling you i am on about your cognition trip... i'm not...

then you insult away....

lol...

it's hilarious....

i just don't like being told what i said when i did not say what you said i said is all...

what ever trip your on it's not compassionate it's aggravating in fact....lol

you want to argue...i don't...

now please...stop saying what you think i said...your projecting ...and it's annoying...

[ground]

What we have been discussing is the sense perception subset of direct perception. For a mādhyamika sense perception is always ...

I doubt that you got what I have been trying to say.

There is a cause for the arising of philosophical views. There is a cause for the cessation of philosophical views. There is the gratification of philosophical views. There is the danger of philosophical views and there is the escape in case of philosophical views. **

That one who has not put down the burden of philosophical views could achieve clear knowledge and full understanding, that is impossible.**

That one who has not put down the burden of philosophical views could achieve the capacity of benefitting others, that is impossible.

Kind regards

EDIT:
** wording inspired by the Buddha's teachings on the aggregates.

[Jnana]

I doubt that you got what I have been trying to say.

I got what you have been trying to say.

philosophical views

Your characterization of Indian Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka as "philosophical views" is misplaced and misses the point entirely. Of course, that this has been pointed out to you hasn't stopped you from posting your opinionated quips all over DW.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

I doubt that you got what I have been trying to say.

I got what you have been trying to say.

You got what you were able to understand.

Kind regards

[ground]

philosophical views

Your characterization of Indian Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka as "philosophical views" is misplaced and misses the point entirely.

What is it other than that: (?)

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Kind regards

[Jnana]

Your characterization of Indian Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka as "philosophical views" is misplaced and misses the point entirely.

What is it other than that: (?)

Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka are not duḥkha as your above post implies. Mahāmudrā and Atiyoga are not karmic saṃskāras and upādānaskandhas as your previous post states. Such characterizations are pejorative quips demonstrating a lack of understanding of these teachings.

You got what you were able to understand.

The gist of what you've been saying is neither accurate nor profound.

All the best,

Geoff

[ground]

Your characterization of Indian Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka as "philosophical views" is misplaced and misses the point entirely.

What is it other than that: (?)

Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka are not duḥkha as your above post implies.

Your insistence may be clinging to views. So your words and your insistence are different?

The gist of what you've been saying is neither accurate nor profound.

That's the nature of all sayings.

Kind regards

[Jnana]

Your insistence may be clinging to views.

No insistence. Just a full embrace. The Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra:

Lord, the bodhisattva mahāsattva who is uncertain about the Mahāyāna becomes averse to embracing the Illustrious Doctrine and is occupied with his own fancy; he reaps the fortune of entering the stage of the spiritually immature ordinary person. Lord, this I see to be a great disadvantage and harm. Lord, I foresee the perfection of aim yielding incalculable benefit for myself and future bodhisattvas through embracing the Illustrious Doctrine; and so I take this vow to embrace the Illustrious Doctrine.

All the best,

Geoff

[Rael]

Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka are not duḥkha as your above post implies.




All the best,

Geoff

I would like to know why you are saying he implies that Yogacara and Madhyamaka are duhka????


i mean you tell everyone i'm talking about cognition...i say i'm not even on that playing field...then you say what TMingyur implies????

do you even know what these words mean?

again your just arguing...for the sake of arguing and making no sense at all except putting words into others mouths...


sorry for butting in TMingyur but geoff here is annoying me with this style of debate.

[Jnana]

I would like to know why you are saying he implies that Yogacara and Madhyamaka are duhka????

It's quite clear from the context of his above post and previous posts on this thread and other threads. In reply to a statement directly referencing Mādhyamaka he states that philosophical views -- here implying that Mādhyamaka is merely a philosophical view -- are a burden to be abandoned. His reply is a paraphrase of Āgama statements referring to the gratification, drawbacks, and escape from the clinging aggregates (upādānaskandhas). And the clinging aggregates are duḥkha. On other threads such as this one he has stated that Yogācāra is "speculation" and "mental proliferation" and "unskillful view," and that the Mahāyāna commentaries are "the effect of clinging aggregates." All of these quips are nonsense.

i mean you tell everyone i'm talking about cognition.

I never once said what you were talking about.

All the best,

Geoff