emptiness = interdependence?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:04 pm

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.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:45 pm

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.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Rael » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:38 pm

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

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:44 pm

Rael wrote:whats a represands...



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

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

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:22 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:28 pm

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
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:29 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Malcolm » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:33 pm

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.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:41 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:49 pm

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.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:06 pm

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:
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:08 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:25 pm

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.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:28 pm

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

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:34 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:39 pm

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

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:42 pm

Nangwa wrote:If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Just that:

"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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby Josef » Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:58 pm

TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Just that:

"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.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby ground » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:11 pm

Nangwa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Nangwa wrote:If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?


Just that:

"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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: emptiness = interdependence?

Postby norman » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:13 pm

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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: daverupa, odysseus, Simon E., smcj, Thrasymachus and 23 guests

>