Liveliness and Contention

[Tom]

Tsongkhapa, I think, takes more or less a standard Mādhyamika stance, while Khedrup Je was more Prasaṅgika in his views.

Hmm, I don’t know if this is true or false, but in the third english volume of the LRCM, Lord Tsongkhapa spends four chapters on the differences between Svatantrika and Prasangika and concludes on page 274 (page 719 in the original) with “Here. We are followers of the Prasangika system [...] you should accept the Prasangika position as explained above.” Then in the next chapter he presents the Prasangika master Chandrakirti’s Seven Point Fold Chariot exercise and states that it is a “Prasangika procedure”.

Thus, Lord Tsongkhapa considered himself Prasangika. If he was moderate Prasangika compared to Khedrup Je or some such then I don’t know.

Yes, I am not sure what it would mean that Tsongkhapa is a more moderate Prasangika than Khedrup Je. Prasangika means different things to different people. However, from a Gelugpa perspective both Tsongkhapa and Khedrup Je are considered Prasangikas. Khedrup Je's work is an extension of Tsongkhapa's unique madhyamaka prasangika position.

[viniketa]

... the third english volume of the LRCM, Lord Tsongkhapa spends four chapters on the differences between Svatantrika and Prasangika and concludes on page 274 (page 719 in the original) with “Here. We are followers of the Prasangika system [...] you should accept the Prasangika position as explained above.” Then in the next chapter he presents the Prasangika master Chandrakirti’s Seven Point Fold Chariot exercise and states that it is a “Prasangika procedure”.

Yes, I am not sure what it would mean that Tsongkhapa is a more moderate Prasangika than Khedrup Je. Prasangika means different things to different people. However, from a Gelugpa perspective both Tsongkhapa and Khedrup Je are considered Prasangikas. Khedrup Je's work is an extension of Tsongkhapa's unique madhyamaka prasangika position.

Very much a detractor of Svātantra, yes. I stand corrected on his Prasaṅga stance...

[Konchog1]

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...

Not to get off topic, but do you mean "seeing as thing as illusions"?

[zerwe]

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...

Not to get off topic, but do you mean "seeing as thing as illusions"?

Direct perception would be a pure perception free from all obscuration and elaboration (this includes conceptual thought).

Shaun

[zerwe]

Haha, I was going to ask for help understanding this quote but I understood it after writing it out. Well, I’ll share the quote to get things going.

On page 304 of the third volume of the English translation of the Lam Rim Chen Mo, Lord Tsongkhapa explains how phenomena function although empty by means of the metaphor of a mirror.

“A reflection of a face is undeniably a conjunction of (1) being empty of the eyes, ears, and such that appear therein and (2) being produced in dependence upon a mirror and a face, while disintegrating when certain of these conditions are gone. Likewise, the person lacks even a particle of intrinsic nature, but is the accumulator of karma and experiencer of effects, and is produced in dependence upon earlier karma and afflictions.”

I prefer Lord Nagarjuna simply saying that causes and effects can't exist at the same time and thus all phenomena must be empty to function. Not only is this simpler, it also leads to a better understanding of the interdependence of dependent origination and emptiness. At least it did for me.

What do you guys think?

I found a transcript of some teachings of Geshe Chonyi from Amitabha Buddhist Center that may shed some light on this passage.

fpmtabc.org/download/teaching/geshe.../SI%20L56%20(upload).doc

I am not going to attempt to summarize, but here are a few of the points from the outline that address this:

a) The ways in which Prasangika and Svatantrika posit the object of negation do not agree, therefore they are also not the same in their distinction of real and wrong conventionalities

b) Although the reflection of a face is not an obscurational truth in relation to a worldly person familiar with terminology, it is an obscurational truth, generally speaking

c) That mistaken consciousness helps posit a false object of comprehension even though it does not posit a true object of comprehension

hope this helps

Shaun

[Konchog1]

Thanks!

I can't access your link though. Try Tinyurl?

[zerwe]

Thanks!

I can't access your link though. Try Tinyurl?

Try this here is a link to the index scroll down a little and it is "SI L56 (upload).doc"

http://www.fpmtabc.org/download/teachin ... l-insight/

Shaun

[Tom]

What is direct perception exactly?

Direct perception would be a pure perception free from all obscuration and elaboration (this includes conceptual thought).

Where does this definition come from? Specifically, that direct perception is free from all obscuration?

It maybe answers a question that the original question raised for me (and save my teacher from my question below).

The short version of the question I had was: since perception seems to already indicate a bare apprehension of the object, what does the addition of "direct" to the term "direct perception" add?

My confusion is explained in detail below !

Perception is defined by Dignaga as “that which is free from conceptualization (kalpanā). However, perceptions although free from conceptualization are not necessarily reliable sources of knowledge (pramāna|tshad ma). Dharmakirti defines a pramāna as an awareness that is unmistaken (avisamvādi) and reveals a new object (ajñātārthaprakāśa). While Gelugpas, for various reasons some previously discussed in this thread, define pramāna simply as an incontrovertible knower. Either way it refers not only to reliable perceptions but includes also reliable conceptions namely inferences.

Anyways, when the term "direct perception" is used it gets a bit confusing for me with regards to what the addition meaning the term "direct" might add. It might be tempting then to think of that qualifying "perception" with "direct" then specifies that we are talking about only those perceptions which are reliable sources of knowledge.

This might have worked in India in 500 c.e., however, when Gelugpas talk about reliable sources of knowledge the term "direct" has a very specific meaning. For them "direct" means that the mind realizes it main object through the force of experience without directly depending on a logical reasoning. Maybe surprisingly, it includes not only perceptions but also, memory, and the second moment of realization after an inferential reasoning. It seems to me then incorrect then to equate a direct source of knowledge མངོན་སུམ་གྱི་ཚད་མ with the term "direct perception" since perceptions are necessarily non-conceptual and as explained direct sources of knowledge can be conceptual.

When people say "direct perception" then it seems they probably don't mean realized by a direct perception or more correctly as a direct source of knowledge མངོན་སུམ་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ but realized directly མངོན་སུམ་དུ་རྟོགས་པ. Since, "realize by direct source of knowledge" is to realize without directly relying on logical reasoning but through the force of experience and includes conceptual minds, while "to realize directly" is to realize the object vividly without the mediation of a general image. However, if this is the case it seems that by definition perceptions realize things directly and that then to say "direct perception" seems to me redundant.

[zerwe]

What is direct perception exactly?

Direct perception would be a pure perception free from all obscuration and elaboration (this includes conceptual thought).

Where does this definition come from? Specifically, that direct perception is free from all obscuration?

It maybe answers a question that the original question raised for me (and save my teacher from my question below).

The short version of the question I had was: since perception seems to already indicate a bare apprehension of the object, what does the addition of "direct" to the term "direct perception" add?

My confusion is explained in detail below !

Perception is defined by Dignaga as “that which is free from conceptualization (kalpanā). However, perceptions although free from conceptualization are not necessarily reliable sources of knowledge (pramāna|tshad ma). Dharmakirti defines a pramāna as an awareness that is unmistaken (avisamvādi) and reveals a new object (ajñātārthaprakāśa). While Gelugpas, for various reasons some previously discussed in this thread, define pramāna simply as an incontrovertible knower. Either way it refers not only to reliable perceptions but includes also reliable conceptions namely inferences.

Anyways, when the term "direct perception" is used it gets a bit confusing for me with regards to what the addition meaning the term "direct" might add. It might be tempting then to think of that qualifying "perception" with "direct" then specifies that we are talking about only those perceptions which are reliable sources of knowledge.

This might have worked in India in 500 c.e., however, when Gelugpas talk about reliable sources of knowledge the term "direct" has a very specific meaning. For them "direct" means that the mind realizes it main object through the force of experience without directly depending on a logical reasoning. Maybe surprisingly, it includes not only perceptions but also, memory, and the second moment of realization after an inferential reasoning. It seems to me then incorrect then to equate a direct source of knowledge མངོན་སུམ་གྱི་ཚད་མ with the term "direct perception" since perceptions are necessarily non-conceptual and as explained direct sources of knowledge can be conceptual.

When people say "direct perception" then it seems they probably don't mean realized by a direct perception or more correctly as a direct source of knowledge མངོན་སུམ་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ but realized directly མངོན་སུམ་དུ་རྟོགས་པ. Since, "realize by direct source of knowledge" is to realize without directly relying on logical reasoning but through the force of experience and includes conceptual minds, while "to realize directly" is to realize the object vividly without the mediation of a general image. However, if this is the case it seems that by definition perceptions realize things directly and that then to say "direct perception" seems to me redundant.

Tom, I think I get the gist of your thinking here. I probably have to chalk my use of the term up to my

misinterpretation of Dignaga and/or Vasubandhu. You are right, as I recall, he uses only 'perception.' I'll have to review

the Pramanasammucaya.

CHP I from Hattori's transl.

k. 2a-b1 'the means of cognition are (immediate and mediate, namely,) perception (pratyaksha)
and inference (anumana)....

k3c perception (pratyaksha) is free from conceptual construction (kalpana).

The cognition in which there is no conceptual construction is perception. What then is this conceptual construction?

k. 3d. the association of name (naman), genus (jati), etc. (with a thing perceived, which results in verbal designation of the thing).

So, my thinking is (and I may be wrong) conceptual construction is elaboration with regard to perceived object.

The described elaboration (name, genus, etc.) is an acquired/learned designation and a form of (not the only as defective senses

and probably many other things could be as well) obscuration.

Shaun

[viniketa]

I probably have to chalk my use of the term up to my misinterpretation of Dignaga and/or Vasubandhu.

Not necessarily. You may just be using terms from later thinking. Candrakīrti, for example, never assumes only one type of perception.



P.S. The Sanskrit term most often translated as 'direct perception' is yogāpratyakṣa. If I recall, it was even used on occasion by Vasubandhu.

[Tom]

Tom, I think I get the gist of your thinking here. I probably have to chalk my use of the term up to my

misinterpretation of Dignaga and/or Vasubandhu. You are right, as I recall, he uses only 'perception.' I'll have to review

the Pramanasammucaya.

CHP I from Hattori's transl.

k. 2a-b1 'the means of cognition are (immediate and mediate, namely,) perception (pratyaksha)
and inference (anumana)....

k3c perception (pratyaksha) is free from conceptual construction (kalpana).

The cognition in which there is no conceptual construction is perception. What then is this conceptual construction?

k. 3d. the association of name (naman), genus (jati), etc. (with a thing perceived, which results in verbal designation of the thing).

So, my thinking is (and I may be wrong) conceptual construction is elaboration with regard to perceived object.

The described elaboration (name, genus, etc.) is an acquired/learned designation and a form of (not the only as defective senses

and probably many other things could be as well) obscuration.

Shaun

Cool, thanks for the response. Seems we are on the same page.

Also, I agree that for Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the concepts, labels and categories of conceptual construction are elaborations unrelated to the real particulars (svalaksana) of perception but rather are generic objects (sāmānyalaksana) which are explained in terms of exclusion (apoha).

[JKhedrup]

I asked Geshe Sonam Ngodup about this. He advises that in order to understand this point people look at the lorig teachings. He advised understanding the definitions first. What is the measure of "realizing directly" versus the measure of "perceiving directly". This difference he said is considered very important.

Geshe la's definition of the "measure of" (off the top of his head he sadys) mngon sum du rtogs pa'i tsad - to realize directly/cognize directly/ illuminator dictionary gives this as "to know/comprehend in direct perception"

to be realized through appearing clearly without being mixed with the meaning generality
don spyir dang ma 'dres pa gsal bar snang ba'i sgo nas rtogs pa

dngos su rtogs pa which is most commonly translated as direct perception:

to be realized through appearing clearly
gsal bar snang ba'i sgo nas rtogs pa

Note that in this second definition it does not speak of not being mixed with the meaning generality (sometimes translated as generic image). So why is the first one- to realize directly, different from the second one, the direct perception.

The Illuminator Dictionary says this about meaning generalities/generic images:

Generic image". The full definition of this term involves deep discussions of how the ignorant mind operates. However, in brief, an ignorant mind first apprehends an actual object in direct perception but then makes a conceptualized image of that thing which is thereafter referred to as the thing itself. This conceptualized image is merely a generic structure made in conceptual mind for the purpose of having a དམིགས་པ་ reference point for the labels needed by conceptual mind. The "image" is not an obvious mental visual image but more like the negative image of a film.

[Tom]

I asked Geshe Sonam Ngodup about this. He advises that in order to understand this point people look at the lorig teachings. He advised understanding the definitions first. What is the measure of "realizing directly" versus the measure of "perceiving directly". This difference he said is considered very important.

Geshe la's definition of the "measure of" (off the top of his head he sadys) mngon sum du rtogs pa'i tsad - to realize directly/cognize directly/ illuminator dictionary gives this as "to know/comprehend in direct perception"

to be realized through appearing clearly without being mixed with the meaning generality
don spyir dang ma 'dres pa gsal bar snang ba'i sgo nas rtogs pa

dngos su rtogs pa which is most commonly translated as direct perception:

to be realized through appearing clearly
gsal bar snang ba'i sgo nas rtogs pa

Note that in this second definition it does not speak of not being mixed with the meaning generality (sometimes translated as generic image). So why is the first one- to realize directly, different from the second one, the direct perception.

The Illuminator Dictionary says this about meaning generalities/generic images:

Generic image". The full definition of this term involves deep discussions of how the ignorant mind operates. However, in brief, an ignorant mind first apprehends an actual object in direct perception but then makes a conceptualized image of that thing which is thereafter referred to as the thing itself. This conceptualized image is merely a generic structure made in conceptual mind for the purpose of having a དམིགས་པ་ reference point for the labels needed by conceptual mind. The "image" is not an obvious mental visual image but more like the negative image of a film.

Wonderful!

It surprises me that it is mngon sum du rtogs pa'i tsad rather than dngos su rtogs pa that is qualified by don spyir ma 'dres pa.

I thought I remember differently which means I must be rusty and need to pull out my old lo rig texts!

Anyways, Geshela's comments confirm my suspicions - I just don't think direct perception is a good translation of any of the terms.

[JKhedrup]

Yes, I am not sure what it would mean that Tsongkhapa is a more moderate Prasangika than Khedrup Je. Prasangika means different things to different people. However, from a Gelugpa perspective both Tsongkhapa and Khedrup Je are considered Prasangikas. Khedrup Je's work is an extension of Tsongkhapa's unique madhyamaka prasangika position.

Berzin says this about Khedrup Je's approach:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ipt_1.html

If we look at the history of this material, there was a great Indian master Dignaga who wrote the initial text on the topic, and then there was afterwards Dharmakirti, who wrote commentaries on it and developed the ideas a little bit more. That was in India. Then it went to Tibet, and you get it first in the Kadampa tradition. This tradition had two versions of it, one by a master called Chapa (Phyva-pa Chos-kyi seng-ge) and one by a master called Loden-sherab (Blo-ldan shes-rab), and they’re quite different in their understandings of what did Dharmakirti really mean because the Indian masters often wrote not so clearly or specifically. And then there are many sub-commentaries and they slightly differ in their interpretations. So you get two main Tibetan early traditions. And Sakya Pandita from the Sakya tradition followed basically Loden Sherab, and he wrote the major Tibetan commentaries on this material. Chapa’s position was kept to the side. And the Sakyas and the Nyingmas basically follow Sakya Pandita.

Then later on the Gelug tradition comes along, and one of the great early Gelug masters, Kaydrubjey (mKhas-grub-rje) wrote his commentaries – a little bit sneaky in a sense, in that he says, “Oh yes, we also follow Sakya Pandita,” but actually he brings in all of Chapa’s set of theories and explanations, and they follow that in the Gelug tradition. The Kagyu tradition reacted against that and said that Sakya Pandita was not being really understood even though you say you are representing what Sakya Pandita meant; and so they get their version of it, which is basically the same as what you get in the Sakya/Nyingma tradition, but with just some variations, some minor variants there – this was done by the Seventh Karmapa. So we get these basic traditions. And then within the Gelug and within the other traditions, you get the college textbooks that make minor variations on it.

[JKhedrup]

Dear Tom you scared me for a minute so I double checked with Geshe la, I seem to have given his thoughts regarding the terms correctly, and also learned something else that is interesting.

Geshe la:
Dngos su rtogs pa (direct perception)
Spyi don dang ma ‘dres pa dgos gi ma re. Yin nay, tsam tsam la spyi don dang ma dres pa re.

So dngos su rtogs pa does not have to be qualified by "not being mixed with a meaning generality", but sometimes it is the case that it is not mixed with the meaning generality.

So the definition is more open.

mngon sum du rtogs pa (to realize directly/to comprehend in direct perception)
on the other hand, must be be qualified by "not being mixed with a meaning generality". So it is an essential aspect for the correct use of this term, whereas for the former, it could be either way. This term seems much more quantifiable.

[Tom]

Yes, I am not sure what it would mean that Tsongkhapa is a more moderate Prasangika than Khedrup Je. Prasangika means different things to different people. However, from a Gelugpa perspective both Tsongkhapa and Khedrup Je are considered Prasangikas. Khedrup Je's work is an extension of Tsongkhapa's unique madhyamaka prasangika position.

Berzin says this about Khedrup Je's approach:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ipt_1.html

If we look at the history of this material, there was a great Indian master Dignaga who wrote the initial text on the topic, and then there was afterwards Dharmakirti, who wrote commentaries on it and developed the ideas a little bit more. That was in India. Then it went to Tibet, and you get it first in the Kadampa tradition. This tradition had two versions of it, one by a master called Chapa (Phyva-pa Chos-kyi seng-ge) and one by a master called Loden-sherab (Blo-ldan shes-rab), and they’re quite different in their understandings of what did Dharmakirti really mean because the Indian masters often wrote not so clearly or specifically. And then there are many sub-commentaries and they slightly differ in their interpretations. So you get two main Tibetan early traditions. And Sakya Pandita from the Sakya tradition followed basically Loden Sherab, and he wrote the major Tibetan commentaries on this material. Chapa’s position was kept to the side. And the Sakyas and the Nyingmas basically follow Sakya Pandita.

Then later on the Gelug tradition comes along, and one of the great early Gelug masters, Kaydrubjey (mKhas-grub-rje) wrote his commentaries – a little bit sneaky in a sense, in that he says, “Oh yes, we also follow Sakya Pandita,” but actually he brings in all of Chapa’s set of theories and explanations, and they follow that in the Gelug tradition. The Kagyu tradition reacted against that and said that Sakya Pandita was not being really understood even though you say you are representing what Sakya Pandita meant; and so they get their version of it, which is basically the same as what you get in the Sakya/Nyingma tradition, but with just some variations, some minor variants there – this was done by the Seventh Karmapa. So we get these basic traditions. And then within the Gelug and within the other traditions, you get the college textbooks that make minor variations on it.

Yes, but how does this distinguish him from Tsongkhapa who claims to take up Chandra's metaphysics while ignoring his epistemology?

Granted, Khedrup Je and Gyeltsab Je do have different explanation of Tsongkhapa's presentation of Dharmakriti but I am skeptical that there would be any reason in there to think of Khedrup as more prasangika than Tsongkhapa.

[Tom]

Dear Tom you scared me for a minute so I double checked with Geshe la, I seem to have given his thoughts regarding the terms correctly, and also learned something else that is interesting.

Geshe la:
Dngos su rtogs pa (direct perception)
Spyi don dang ma ‘dres pa dgos gi ma re. Yin nay, tsam tsam la spyi don dang ma dres pa re.

So dngos su rtogs pa does not have to be qualified by "not being mixed with a meaning generality", but sometimes it is the case that it is not mixed with the meaning generality.

So the definition is more open.

mngon sum du rtogs pa (to realize directly/to comprehend in direct perception)
on the other hand, must be be qualified by "not being mixed with a meaning generality". So it is an essential aspect for the correct use of this term, whereas for the former, it could be either way. This term seems much more quantifiable.

Cool and thanks.

My bad. I quickly read your post and had missed the distinction between dngos and mngon (damn wylie!) thinking the point being made was in reference to the addition of tsad!

I still think it a little weird that dngos gets translated as direct.

Thanks again for taking the time to clear it up.

[viniketa]

All of the above is pretty much Tibetan to me...

Seems to confirm I should not venture further into these study areas until I can make the time for a firm commitment to learn the language.

[JKhedrup]

Sorry, my laziness. I posted in Tibetan because I looked up a couple of different English terms for those words and there were so many that I wasn't sure what people were familiar with and was too lazy to bother posting them.

[viniketa]

Well, I'm not sure the English adds all that much understanding, anyway...

Any chance of explaining in Sanskrit?



P.S.: One of the reasons I will miss Malcolm, who often acted as a 3 or 4 way interpreter...