Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:37 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 297 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Nangwa wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
TMINGYUR-

Is your "Correlate" what I would call the "mental image" of the direct perception by the sense faculty and consciousness?
In other words, the image that exists in the mental consciousness? Do you understand my question?

Maybe Tmingyur is using "correlate" in the sense of pramana or valid cognition.



Direct perceptions do not cling. There is no clinging in sparsha, contact. Clinging arises following the second order cognition which we call craving; which itself follows sensation i.e. when a direct perception registers as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral to the manas.

This makes it impossible for clinging to ever be a direct perception or experience. There is no correlate to clinging, clinging is just clinging.

TMingyur has world split into, shall we say "represands" and "representations". He feels for every valid representation there must be an truly existent represand, otherwise, that representation is invalid. It is a very substantialist view.

He rejects madhyamaka because Madhyamaka renders all representations invalid since there are not actual represands, only conventional represands.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
Namdrol wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
TMINGYUR-

Is your "Correlate" what I would call the "mental image" of the direct perception by the sense faculty and consciousness?
In other words, the image that exists in the mental consciousness? Do you understand my question?

Maybe Tmingyur is using "correlate" in the sense of pramana or valid cognition.



Direct perceptions do not cling. There is no clinging in sparsha, contact. Clinging arises following the second order cognition which we call craving; which itself follows sensation i.e. when a direct perception registers as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral to the manas.

This makes it impossible for clinging to ever be a direct perception or experience. There is no correlate to clinging, clinging is just clinging.

TMingyur has world split into, shall we say "represands" and "representations". He feels for every valid representation there must be an truly existent represand, otherwise, that representation is invalid. It is a very substantialist view.

He rejects madhyamaka because Madhyamaka renders all representations invalid since there are not actual represands, only conventional represands.

N

I agree with all these statements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:36 pm
Posts: 477
whats a represands...

_________________
Love Love Love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Rael wrote:
whats a represands...



It is a word I made up for the object of a representation.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Namdrol wrote:
TMingyur has world split into, shall we say "represands" and "representations". He feels for every valid representation there must be an truly existent represand, otherwise, that representation is invalid. It is a very substantialist view.

He rejects madhyamaka because Madhyamaka renders all representations invalid since there are not actual represands, only conventional represands.

N


You are totally conditioned by your learned thinking. That is the effect of philosophy.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
TMingyur has world split into, shall we say "represands" and "representations". He feels for every valid representation there must be an truly existent represand, otherwise, that representation is invalid. It is a very substantialist view.

He rejects madhyamaka because Madhyamaka renders all representations invalid since there are not actual represands, only conventional represands.

N


You are totally conditioned by your learned thinking. That is the effect of philosophy.

Kind regards

"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom."—Gandhi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
conebeckham wrote:
TMINGYUR-

Is your "Correlate" what I would call the "mental image" of the direct perception by the sense faculty and consciousness?
In other words, the image that exists in the mental consciousness? Do you understand my question?


Don't know if I understand your question.

"correlate" is a "stirring".
The term "mental image" feels like there already being some sort of "intuitive" (re-)cognition which is kind of "subtle" fabricating thought and is somewhere "in between" this "stirring" and full-fledged thought.


Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
TMingyur wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
TMINGYUR-

Is your "Correlate" what I would call the "mental image" of the direct perception by the sense faculty and consciousness?
In other words, the image that exists in the mental consciousness? Do you understand my question?


Don't know if I understand your question.

"correlate" is a "stirring".
The term "mental image" feels like there already being some sort of "intuitive" (re-)cognition which is kind of "subtle" fabricating thought and is somewhere "in between" this "stirring" and full-fledged thought.


Kind regards



Part of the problem here, TMigyur is that you are using this invented made up Dharma language. So largely, people have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the hell your actually saying, apart from your standard retort about clinging. You would boor paint at a dinner party.

N

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Namdrol wrote:
Part of the problem here, TMigyur is that you are using this invented made up Dharma language. So largely, people have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the hell your actually saying, ...


Well yes. The point is that as soon as you apply terms everbody knows and has an opinion about then the result is that everybody thinks to know what is being talked about but actually does only understand what is in their own minds due to having been learned.

Therefore it is better to stay in the conventional sphere of the aggregates: perception, consciousness, feeling ... everybody knows the meaning of these terms because these are linked to direct experience.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
TMingyur wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Part of the problem here, TMigyur is that you are using this invented made up Dharma language. So largely, people have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the hell your actually saying, ...


Well yes. The point is that as soon as you apply terms everbody knows and has an opinion about then the result is that everybody thinks to know what is being talked about but actually does only understand what is in their own minds due to having been learned.



Kind regards

You're making assumptions about the capacity of others that you dont really have the insight or evidence to support.
What people have learned can be skillfully implemented in order to communicate effectively about direct experience.
To assume that your fellow posters are incapable of this is an inaccurate and presumptuous assessment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:06 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
TMingyur wrote:
You are totally conditioned by your learned thinking. That is the effect of philosophy.
Whereas you are completely liberated by your ignorance?
The only stirring I'm feeling with this discussion is in my underwear.
In a discussion either one uses terms that everybody understands and agrees to the meaning of, or one defines new terms so that eveybody can engage in a meaningful discussion or one crawls back into their hole and engages in intellectual masturbation.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Nangwa wrote:
You're making assumptions about the capacity of others that you dont really have the insight or evidence to support.
What people have learned can be skillfully implemented in order to communicate effectively about direct experience.
To assume that your fellow posters are incapable of this is an inaccurate and presumptuous assessment.


Be that as it may. To communicate about direct experience other than in the form of the effect (term, name) being taken as the cause (direct experience) is not possible.
It may however arouse the fantasy of listeners to talk about mere ideas that are not linked to direct experience and that may not even be experienced anytime in the future ... like e.g. "existence" and "emptiness".

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
You're making assumptions about the capacity of others that you dont really have the insight or evidence to support.
What people have learned can be skillfully implemented in order to communicate effectively about direct experience.
To assume that your fellow posters are incapable of this is an inaccurate and presumptuous assessment.


Be that as it may. To communicate about direct experience other than in the form of the effect (term, name) being taken as the cause (direct experience) is not possible.
It may however arouse the fantasy of listeners to talk about mere ideas that are not linked to direct experience and that may not even be experienced anytime in the future ... like e.g. "existence" and "emptiness".

Kind regards

typing typing typing.
Posts like this are nonsense.
When you refuse to appropriately communicate your ideas your posts become "mere" typing.
So-called existence, and emptiness are quite verifiable, through learning, contemplating, and practicing.
The learning aspect allows the practitioner to understand the direct experience as it unfolds.
The conceptual frameworks of Buddhist philosophy are a map, not the path in and of themselves. Using that map for practice and communication is a completely valid application of the tools at our disposal. Clinging to them however is a problem which can be easily observed by looking at late Tibetan polemics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
Its amazing that this thread is so long when the answer to the op is so very simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
You're making assumptions about the capacity of others that you dont really have the insight or evidence to support.
What people have learned can be skillfully implemented in order to communicate effectively about direct experience.
To assume that your fellow posters are incapable of this is an inaccurate and presumptuous assessment.


Be that as it may. To communicate about direct experience other than in the form of the effect (term, name) being taken as the cause (direct experience) is not possible.
It may however arouse the fantasy of listeners to talk about mere ideas that are not linked to direct experience and that may not even be experienced anytime in the future ... like e.g. "existence" and "emptiness".

Kind regards

typing typing typing.
Posts like this are nonsense.
When you refuse to appropriately communicate your ideas your posts become "mere" typing.

I have never been talking about "my ideas".

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Nangwa wrote:
If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Just that:

Quote:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm
Posts: 1565
TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Just that:

Quote:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Kind regards

The same quote again, that everyone knows and nobody disputes.
Talk about clinging. You're drowning in it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:
If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Just that:

Quote:
"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Kind regards

The same quote again, that everyone knows and nobody disputes.
Talk about clinging. You're drowning in it.


Well then ... I wonder what is so attractive about all these tenets about and around "emptiness" which are mere "intellect & ideas".

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:18 pm
Posts: 82
Sherab,

What do you imply by "the ground of empty appearances"? Are you asking what justifies the concept? Forgive me if I'm merely repeating myself, but you seem to be implying a third concept, that as such cannot be so.

We have two concepts. Let's use ”nothing” and ”everything”, because emptiness carry too many implications as to be useful here.

Nothing and everything are each the absence of each other. Nothing is necessarily non-everything, and everything is necessarily non-nothing. Neither is a concept in its own right. In that sense they are interdependent on each other as concepts, but there is no dependence, as such. So we assume that there is Everything, and that we are somehow supposed to find Nothing in that. But we have gotten it the wrong way round. We have to begin with the counterpart of everything, which is exactly nothing, and apperceive that everything is the implied plenum of that. Then we understand that everything is infact nothing, and that nothing is everything.

Appearance, that which appears to be, is nothing in itself, because it can only be apparent, as such, when implied as being counterpart to nothing, which is not. Your ”ground of empty appearances”, can only be such (as a concept), counterpart to the absence of itself, as such, i.e., nothing. It's a non-concept. It cannot be stated as a syllogism. Their interdependence as concepts is what makes them apparant as concepts to begin with.

Everything is an implication,
Nothing is a necessity
Bodhi svaha!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 297 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group