Hey Sunshine,asunthatneversets wrote: That's cool they revisited that!
Your piece is more of a pointing out piece than Candrakirti's SevenFold Reasoning methinks. There is one mod we may want to make, which should be fine since you disclaimed everything at the start.
This actually makes a bit of a contradiction in the interesting "world" you create. I think we'd need to lobotomize memory as well to prevent one from remembering "change" in whatever sense we focused on, for otherwise, one will "know" something about what changes, and what does not, and that itself becomes self/other or change/nochange. As Cone said way back in this thread, this distinction happens really early in most animals, probably genetic. Anyway, I'm trying to gather all this into an effable thought and sometimes my brain works better when I'm sleeping (actually, I think I am sleeping) so these issues will no doubt receive further blathering in future.asunthatneversets wrote: The conclusion that the colors are external to us is based on the principle that these colors change over time.
...
But by looking at experience very directly it can actually be ascertained that this "otherness" is never a part of our experience.
I don't think this thread has a theme any longer. First it went conventional, now it is approximately everything, perhaps that is the nature of these topics, they are all connected.asunthatneversets wrote: So what are the issues with what cone is saying? Because they fall in line with the entire theme of this thread and are accurate in my opinion.
Cone's post is the latest in a series of messages here, and also in cloud's thread referenced earlier, related to issues of language and how much time we spend trying to understand each others' words. We have Nagarjuna's Language Framework (say NLF for acronym geeks) and today's conventional-dictionary-compatible Modern Language Framework (MLF). NLF{exists} and MLF{exists} can mean really different things. Many words are like this. NLF{cognitive error} means you are not fairly advanced in meditation and/or Madhyamaka understanding of subject/object. MLF{cognitive error} means something is physically wrong with your brain, like you have ADD or seizures or made a conventionally false statement. When experienced Buddhists, like folks in this group, speak to "people on the street" using ALF, is this a "good" idea? As fun as semantics may be, it may not be the most effective approach to learning, teaching, or discussing Buddhism and spreading the Dharma. Cone says you can't know whose "fault" it is. Let's see, and some readers appear to avoid discussing the issue entirely so that their reaction feels irrational rather than your average Buddhist equanimity. So too many things for same thread imo, there is at least epistemology, ethics and morality, social dynamics, Buddhism itself (conventionally speaking), another almost everything topic. Maybe we can limit this thread to emptiness, realism versus antirealism, rabbit horns, and no more than six additional issues and fourteen jokes.
Now I must return to the ever-satisfying deep sleep state. Hasta manana.
Regards,
Dave.