buddhist hinduism?

[Malcolm]

Napper's book Dependent Arising has a whole section devling into this issue. Look there.

N

Ok so checked the index in Napper's book and could not find any reference to Je Tsongkhapa disregarding the second set. All I could find was his classic emphasis on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the tetralemma (yes, all four lines). I checked back to the Snow Lion translation of LRCM and in the chapter "Production is not Refuted" (p189) found one discussion on the tetralemma which again is more of a discussion on the need for qualifiers when interpreting the four lines such as refuting essential nature etc. Nowhere have I found Je Tsongkhapa actively disregarding the second set.

Look on page 60 of the Napper book.

[mudra]

Namdrol-lags,

Actually I did already before I posted that last post.

(Sorry not to answer sooner, I fell asleep as it was 2 am my time)

What I found on p60-61, was not Je Tsongkhapa disregarding the second set of extremes, but instead saying that they need to be interpreted with (implied) qualifiers, and not literally. The emphasis is on knowing when and where to apply the "inherently existent" clause in order to avoid a contradiction.

BTW found online "Freedom From Extremes" by Jose I Cabezon and Geshe Lobsang Dargey. Any opinions on this book?

[Malcolm]

Namdrol-lags,

Actually I did already before I posted that last post.

(Sorry not to answer sooner, I fell asleep as it was 2 am my time)

What I found on p60-61, was not Je Tsongkhapa disregarding the second set of extremes, but instead saying that they need to be interpreted with (implied) qualifiers, and not literally. The emphasis is on knowing when and where to apply the "inherently existent" clause in order to avoid a contradiction.

BTW found online "Freedom From Extremes" by Jose I Cabezon and Geshe Lobsang Dargey. Any opinions on this book?

There are a couple of errors in translation in that book, for example, for some strange reason Cabezon thinks that Gorampa is siding with Rendawa's rather extreme refutation of gzhan stong, when actually Gorampa supports Rongton's softer refutation of gzhan stong. Otherwise, it is pretty good.

Re: tetralemma -- this is the basis of the disagreement, whether to take the tetralemma literally. Gorampa takes Tsongkhapa to task for trying to reinterpet the tetralemma. It must be taken literally, for among other reasons, [one not mentioned in the book], there are those who assert things both exist and do not exist, for example Jain and other interpretation of arising where there is an instant where something is in simultaneous state of existent and non-existence. In other words, the tetralemma is to be taken literally.

The book is ok, but really needs to redone by Sakyapa.

N

[Enochian]

One of the key points of Gorampa's criticism of Tsongkhapa is how to negate. But I don't understand why you need to get into the murky waters of negation in the first place to state the principles of Gorampa's Madhyamaka. I can state the principles of of Gorampa's Madhyamaka without getting into negation.

a. Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions. This applies to yourself, deities, time, the causes and conditions themselves, and even the principle of causality itself.

b. By its very nature conceptual thought is dichotomizing, yet "reality" (or lack of it) is free from all extremes.

c. Thus for Gorampa, the ultimate truth is a gnosis outside the mind itself.

See that wasn't so hard. I was able to accurately state the principles of Gorampa's Madhyamaka without getting bogged down with negation and all that crap.

[Malcolm]

I can state the principles of of Gorampa's Madhyamaka without getting into negation.

a. Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions.

Wrong. Gorampa rejects this point. Designations are made on the basis of appearances.

N

[Enochian]

Doesn't appearance = thoughtform?

[Malcolm]

Doesn't appearance = thoughtform?

No, an appearance is a sense cognition.

[gregkavarnos]

Aren't sense cognitions ultimately thought forms since (sensory) sensations pass through their respective sense-mind before we can cognise the sensory cognition? (to put it extraordinarily clumsily)

[Malcolm]

Aren't sense cognitions ultimately thought forms since (sensory) sensations pass through their respective sense-mind before we can cognise the sensory cognition? (to put it extraordinarily clumsily)

Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations.

A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

[gregkavarnos]

Aren't sense cognitions ultimately thought forms since (sensory) sensations pass through their respective sense-mind before we can cognise the sensory cognition? (to put it extraordinarily clumsily)

Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations.

A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

Okay, now I understand. Can perception ever be non-conceptual to an unenlightened being?

[Malcolm]

Aren't sense cognitions ultimately thought forms since (sensory) sensations pass through their respective sense-mind before we can cognise the sensory cognition? (to put it extraordinarily clumsily)

Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations.

A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

Okay, now I understand. Can perception ever be non-conceptual to an unenlightened being?

All direct perceptions are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not.

[gregkavarnos]

But aren't all perceptions mediated by the dualistic cognising mind?

[conebeckham]

Yes, ^, for ignorant beings such as ourselves.....

[mudra]

But aren't all perceptions mediated by the dualistic cognising mind?

Not really. There are different ways of 'categorising' consciousnesses/awarenesses. IN each different way there will always be non-conceptual direct perception as different from conceptual awareness which perceives through the agency of an image/concept (and then in practice often mixed).

The term pramana (prime/first mind) also refers to this direct perception free of conceptual filters.

[Malcolm]

The term pramana (prime/first mind) also refers to this direct perception free of conceptual filters.

"mana" means to measure, hence in Tibetan "tshad".

Pratyaḳsa (mngon sum) is the word for direct perception.

Inferenece (anumana), which is not a direct perception is also a pramana.

N

[mudra]

The term pramana (prime/first mind) also refers to this direct perception free of conceptual filters.

"mana" means to measure, hence in Tibetan "tshad".

Pratyaḳsa (mngon sum) is the word for direct perception.

Inferenece (anumana), which is not a direct perception is also a pramana.

N

Pramana is referred to in various texts as prime awareness/cognition etc.

"also refers" is not exclusive of inference being pramana also. I think we had this discussion of inference as praman on another thread and basically had the same view on it being pramana.

[Malcolm]

Pramana is referred to in various texts as prime awareness/cognition etc.

Pramana means, basically, "authoritative".

N

[mudra]

Pramana is referred to in various texts as prime awareness/cognition etc.

Pramana means, basically, "authoritative".

N

Agreed. It is a term used in "Hinduism" as well (remembering the topic of this thread.)

I looked up several Sanskrit dictionaries and they all seemed to say that "mana" is mind. Pra can refer to primary or prime.
So rather than going into that tenet debate on whether it means first or prime in the sense of incontrovertible I think your term authoritative works quite well.

[gregkavarnos]

The term pramana (prime/first mind) also refers to this direct perception free of conceptual filters.

So what you are saying is that an unenlightened being (ie me) can have a direct (not mediated by concpetualising mind) perception via this "pramana"?

Do we have an abhidharmic reference for this term or state of mind "pramana"?

Why do I not always experience perception at this level?

[LastLegend]

The term pramana (prime/first mind) also refers to this direct perception free of conceptual filters.

So what you are saying is that an unenlightened being (ie me) can have a direct (not mediated by concpetualising mind) perception via this "pramana"?

Do we have an abhidharmic reference for this term or state of mind "pramana"?

Why do I not always experience perception at this level?

Everyday the mind is reciting karma of body, speech, and mind (3 poisons).