cloudburst wrote:You no longer wish to debate but for some reason you do while complaining about it.
I am not debating. I have no position to lose, or point to score.
You have to make a choice. Do you "find the whole exercise to be one of utter futility" and "no longer wish to participate in these kinds of discussions?" If so, I feel sorry for you, because you cannot seem to help yourself. If you are not actually debating and do not feel its so futile, perhaps having no position on whether it is futile, no point to score, then no need to keep saying all these wearying things. One gets the impression that you are so tired. Just debate away as you always have.
you represent many positions that all can see, for example it is clearly your position that it is better to rely on the Indian masters than get caught up in later Tibetan polemics. You seem to believe that we should learn Tibetan.You seem to defend the idea that things appear and function, though they are empty, etc etc etc etc
or did you mean "position" or position
, perhaps? Maybe you mean
like, in some kind of specialized sense? If so, please feel free just to say so.
Namdrol wrote: I am not discussing my own POV.
Whose POV are you discussing? It's not Gorampas.... It's not mine... It's not Chandrakirti's.....
Is it the POV of no POV, even though it evinces clear and consistent views? Are you claiming that it is not a POV but in fact "the truth?" I thought you might be, for a moment there.
Or are you not claiming anything in claiming that you are not discussing what you are discussing?
go ahead and just tell it like it is.
Namdrol wrote:I am attempting to encourage people to take a more constructive approach
It is clear that you are perhaps new at giving encouragement.
Namdrol wrote:Instead of saying, as I have many times in the past, "Tsongkhapa was wrong to say that we may leave off the second two alternatives of the four extremes because they are double negatives", it is better think long and hard why he might give such an opinion. Rather than immediately assume that Gorampa is wrong in asserting that Candrakiriti accepts things like svasamvedana conventionally, it is better to ask yourself why he might assert that. These great scholars almost always have very solid reasons for saying what they do about this and that thing, and the thing is, we have to really question ourselves if we think something they said is wrong. That is my point.
I must say, that is an excellent point and I accept it and applaud you and second it. I find one of the best ways to question this is to debate it, honestly.
Please you yourself consider how one might do as you recommend and still believe that mistakes are made by some scholars on some occasions. Especially when, as you say, they have polemical reasons for saying the things they do.
Buddha asserted the mind-only view on occasion and it was refuted by later scholars who understood that Buddha had a very solid reasons for asserting it. This does not mean that it was not incorrect, though very useful to many. Those who find Gorampa's view on the alaya useful will think I am completely wrong, and benefit from thinking so. Good for them.