emptiness = interdependence?

[Malcolm]

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

[Josef]

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.

[Rael]

whats a represands...

[Malcolm]

whats a represands...

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

N

[ground]

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

[Josef]

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

[ground]

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

[Malcolm]

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

[ground]

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

[Josef]

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.

[gregkavarnos]

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.

[ground]

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

[Josef]

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]

Its amazing that this thread is so long when the answer to the op is so very simple.

[ground]

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

[Josef]

If not ideas, what?
If not yours, whose?

[ground]

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

[Josef]

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.

[ground]

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

[norman]

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!