Pema Rigdzin wrote:Is there no difference between "unskillful, period, for anyone" and "merely not suited for me or others with similar proclivities"?
I never said "for anyone".
Pema Rigdzin wrote:If you say that a teaching "is a distraction and a fabrication,"
Actually I said "a concept" and not "a teaching"
And actually I also mentioned the advantages of this concept and just repeated it.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:that is what is called a blanket statement. I'm sure you understand that a blanket statement is a universal pronouncement. It means "this is always the case for anyone who comes across this teaching, not just for me and those with my own proclivities."
The fact that I did not add a qualifier does not legitimate you to assert that I meant a certain qualifier.
You could also say that I made unskillful remarks because I did not add a qualifier but you prefer to accuse me of being disrespectful to the Buddha when I actually just expressed that i do not share your preferences.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:As a further example of your blanket statements, I'll continue to use your own words: "it is a matter of assessing the skillfulness of concepts. If the aim is to liberate all beings then from my point of view the "exegesis emphasizing emptiness" is the "exegesis" of choice."
Here it reads "from my point of view". How can you assert this to be a "blanket statement"?
Pema Rigdzin wrote:Exegesis of choice for who? The "exegesis of choice" is a subjective matter that is relative ...
So again we agree. It is relative.
Pema Rigdzin wrote: TMingyur wrote:
Pema Rigdzin wrote:... at which point do you find "buddha nature" to be a fabrication, during meditation or post-meditation?
I have elaborrated on this above in the context of experiential correlates.
It doesn't have to be that complicated. Please just reply "in meditation" or "in post-meditation".
We are posting here in the sphere of conventional communication. There is no need for such qualifiers.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:Here especially, I'm trying to honestly debate you by trying to ascertain and focus on the core of your actual position.
Assertions should be dialectically traceable.
One may assert everything and obscure reason with some alleged meditational experience.
See if your meditation proves yourself that your view is right then you can be content with that.
Or do you want to argue in a way like "I am right and you are wrong because my view is based on my meditational expirience"? Or "My gurus said this and he is a good meditator and if others do not agree then it is just because they are bad meditators"
I trust that you would not want to consider such "reasoning" "honestly debating".
Really I have already addressed this to conebeckam and would like to address this to you, too:
It is not about who is right and who is wrong.
It is about different approaches.