Ah back, and didn't get into trouble, just got cold and wet!
BFS wrote:His Holiness the Dalai Lama:
" Now, whenever we engage in analysis, such as on the nature of mind or reality, if we proceed from the start already convinced that "it must be so and so," then due to our biases, we will be unable to see the actual truth and will instead see only our naive projection. It is therefore essential that the analyzing mind strive to be objective and not swayed by prejudices. What we need is a skeptical curiosity, our mind moving between the possibilities, genuinely wondering whether it is thus or some other way. We need to begin our analysis as objectively as possible. "
- TMingyur wrote: Now this is very true. However it seems to me that the reasoning above is not less biased:
Compare the premise
"The luminous and knowing aspect of a given state of consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness"
with his statement above
"if we proceed from the start already convinced that "it must be so and so," then due to our biases, we will be unable to see the actual truth and will instead see only our naive projection.".
I don’t know what you are talking about here, I really don’t. It seems to me that you have become stuck on the word, "must." ?
You underline the word must
It is clear to me that His Holiness, when warning us that whenever we engage in analysis, we must keep an open mind if we want to see the actual truth and not just our naïve projection, is making a valid point, just as valid as the point His Holiness makes when he uses the word MUST in the context of consciousness coming from a prior moment of consciousness.
I see no problem there. He has come to that conclusion, after thorough investigation!
Once we have investigated thoroughly, even if we only have a conceptual understanding, that understanding is no longer a complete naïve projection, it no longer comes from our likes and dislikes and naïve based biases, we move on.
Once we have investigated thoroughly, our concluding that the luminous and knowing state of a given consciousness must come from a prior moment of that consciousness, comes from that very investigation, it is right view, wisdom ( be it conceptual or not ) it is no longer purely naïve projection..It comes from investigating all the possibilities, thoroughly.
I don't see a contradiction or problem, or anything that needs further explaining?
Maybe it is just me! I am not a seasoned debater, so please take that into consideration.
However IMO prasangika reasoning betrays its own intention when after undermining the "ordinary" sense of reificationist "reality" it introduces "alternative" reificationist views "through the backdoor".
Now having said all this I concede that for whomever this kind of autonomous syllogistic reasoning is helpful that one should practice this kind of reasoning.
However one should beware of clinging to illusory inherent existence.
You are more than welcome to an opinion, again, I have to say I do not agree with your claim that "prasangika reasoning undermines reificationist reality and then introduces reificationist views through the back door."
I have no idea how you come to those conclusions.
Your warning that one should be aware of clinging to "illusory inherent existence"? How can you cling to something that does not even exist? You can cling to an idea of an "illusion- like inherent existence" - for sure!
But what do I know? I do know I have to go and start baking me illusion-like pies that function in making many people happy, for the holidays!
Thanks for the chat, TMingyur.