catmoon wrote:As I understand it, nothing in Gelug thought precludes the possibility of a reality underlying perception, external to the mind. It would have to be impermanent, empty and dependently originated though. Pretty much unseen too.
That would be my understanding, catmoon, about the stance on 'external' dependent existants. I'm not catching your point about "unseen", though, sorry, unless you are talking about "other emptiness". Tsongkhapa, I think, takes more or less a standard Mādhyamika stance, while Khedrup Je was more Prasaṅgika in his views.
zerwe wrote:So, I might be wrong here, but the point of contention is in how we identify or define the object of negation (in this case person).
In the quoted passage, I don't think there is much contention. Tsongkhapa is simply demonstrating how 'a person' is empty but still subject to karmic re-birth. Karmic consequences are sort of Tsongkhapa's 'thing'.
Konchog1 wrote:What is direct perception exactly?
Short answer: It is a type of yogic perception that is "bare" of all preconceptions (conceptual thought). We could spend a long time just on that topic...
Tom wrote:The above quote is not a straight reading of Nāgārjuna as per an analysis of cause and effects to establish emptiness.
I would agree with that, Tom.
Of course, I'll be most interested to learn JKhedrup's thought on all the above.