Malcolm wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:07 am
No, the object of cognition is not "representation only," (vijñāptimatra) for it it were, there would be no difference between Cittamātra and general Madhyamaka.
I get a little tired of repeating myself, but here it goes again:
Because all entities can be perceived veridically,
it is found that all entities can be apprehended with two natures.
When some object that is perceived veridically, that is true.
All [objects] perceived falsely are said to be relative truths.
"The buddhas that know with correct wisdom the intrinsic nature of the two truths have taught that all external entities such as formations, sprouts, and so on, have two intrinsic natures. These [natures] are relative and ultimate.
This excludes your contention that what is being referred to are mental representations.
The ultimate is the acquisition of the essential identity of the specific object of the wisdom (jñāna) that sees the truth, but is not established through its own nature. This is the first nature. The other is all the mental eyes of ordinary people that are obscured with opthalmia and cataracts, which find an existent self from the power of false perception. Whatever becomes the object of the perception of children, such a nature is not intrinsically established. Therefore, the nature of all entities are apprehended in these two ways.
Frankly, the frustrating thing about you is that you don't do your homework, and don't seem to bother to educate yourself about these things. This is the main reason why I have no interest in your exercises in logic. It is a waste of time, for me, because your logic is not grounded in citation. Time and again, in order to even have a discussion, I define terms, which you consistently ignore, based on some personal criteria which is opaque at best. We have wasted the better part of thread supposedly devoted to Dzogchen to just running on the same hamster wheel. So am I out.
While you claim to understand my position, you in reality, don't.
For example, in the above, you said "your contention that what is being referred to are mental representations
". If you have bothered to understand what I wrote, you will understand that I did NOT at any time said that was my position.
For the sake of clarity, what I said was "For consistency, then, object of cognition in Malcolm statement has to be a mental representation. But if that is the case, then what is understood ultimately cannot be accurate and cannot be a basis for explaining how Siddhas can have the ability to affect their physical objects such as leaving footprints on rocks
Notice that I started off the sentence with "For consistency, then
.." to indicate that what follows was a result of earlier reasoning. Then I went on to point out the problem with such a conclusion. Do you think I am that stupid to adopt such a position knowing that there was a problem with such a position? Maybe you do.
If not, I am left with the conclusion that you don't really understand what I wrote or you don't bother to understand what I was trying to say.
One thing is very clear to me now, namely, that you placed authority over proper reasoning when you stated "It is a waste of time, for me, because your logic is not grounded in citation
." Or to be more accurate, you place your interpretation of authority over the proper reasoning of others.
Finally, as far as I can see, the authority you cited in no way contradict my actual position and I have reasons to back that.