Inherency and the Object of Negation

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4630
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by conebeckham » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:23 pm

I'm no expert on Gorampa's view, Malcolm is the guy to ask.
However, let me parse the quote...
Dependently arisen phenomena are ultimately reducible to the effects of ignorant consciousness , and hence cannot be the ultimate truth of any other phenomena
Any given conditioned phenomenon is dependently arisen, we all agree, I think. Our perception of such phenomena is mistaken, limited, and based in or on ignorant consciousness. This ignorant consciousness interprets something to be there, when there is in fact no phenomenon to be observed. There is the appearance of phenomena, on the level of ignorant consciousness, and the resultant conceptualizations, etc., which result, and which are fully of the ignorant consciousness as well. Therefore, any dependently arisen phenomenon cannot be the ultimate of any other phenomenon. A given emptiness is also empty of itself, and dependently arisen on that object/phenomenon which is empty, or upon which this given emptiness is imputed. Ignorant consciousness conceptualizing the emptiness of a given phenomenon cannot grasp the ultimate nature of things, and therefore as long as there is ignorant consciousness there can be no direct experience of emptiness; the direct experience is not a function of, or a product of, ignorant consciousness at all, but is the result of Wisdom.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Herbie » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:44 am

conebeckham wrote:Any given conditioned phenomenon is dependently arisen, we all agree, I think.
Ok
conebeckham wrote: Our perception of such phenomena is mistaken, limited, and based in or on ignorant consciousness.
Not necessarily.
conebeckham wrote: This ignorant consciousness interprets something to be there, when there is in fact no phenomenon to be observed.
Not correct. An ignorant consciousness interprets something to be there as inherently being something being there inherently.
conebeckham wrote: There is the appearance of phenomena, on the level of ignorant consciousness, and the resultant conceptualizations, etc., which result, and which are fully of the ignorant consciousness as well.
Not necessarily.
conebeckham wrote: Therefore, any dependently arisen phenomenon cannot be the ultimate of any other phenomenon.
Strange expression since "dependently arisen" negates "ultimate" from the outset.
conebeckham wrote: A given emptiness is also empty of itself,
all objects are empty of inherent existence
conebeckham wrote: and dependently arisen on that object/phenomenon which is empty, or upon which this given emptiness is imputed.
That object/phenomenon is an emptiness. It is a negative phenomenon.
conebeckham wrote: Ignorant consciousness conceptualizing the emptiness of a given phenomenon cannot grasp the ultimate nature of things,
if it is an ignorant consciousness, i.e. a consciousness that has not identified the object of negation, it may conceptualize any emptiness whatsoever and will not be able to grasp any ultimate nature, yes.
conebeckham wrote: and therefore as long as there is ignorant consciousness there can be no direct experience of emptiness;
Better: as long as the object of negation has not been identified, emptiness cannot be known
conebeckham wrote: the direct experience is not a function of, or a product of, ignorant consciousness at all, but is the result of Wisdom.
knowledge of emptiness is the result of rational analysis

Matibhadra
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:35 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Matibhadra » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:47 am

[...] upon which this given emptiness is imputed.
Whatever is imputed is never imputed “upon” anything. Whatever is imputed is imputed *to* something.

Besides, whatever is imputed to something is supposed naturally, or inherently, to exist in this something.

Therefore, we are dealing with a linguistic barbarism which, even if corrected, expresses the very opposite of the intended meaning.

However, such self-defeating barbarism became prevalent within some Buddhist circles, which might explain much of the perplexity and inconclusiveness on the intended topic.

vinegar
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by vinegar » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:21 am

Matibhadra wrote:Whatever is imputed is never imputed “upon” anything. Whatever is imputed is imputed *to* something.
Don't you think its correct to say that for example mental images are imputed "upon" a visual aspect?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25421
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:39 pm

Herbie wrote: knowledge of emptiness is the result of rational analysis
Conceptual knowledge of emptiness is a result rational analysis, however, this is solely an "approximate ultimate." It is not the ultimate of realization.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

Matibhadra
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:35 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Matibhadra » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:31 pm

vinegar wrote:
Matibhadra wrote:Whatever is imputed is never imputed “upon” anything. Whatever is imputed is imputed *to* something.
Don't you think its correct to say that for example mental images are imputed "upon" a visual aspect?
Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English, it follows that the collection of words 'mental images are imputed upon a visual aspect' is just a meaningless collection of words, which therefore does not qualify as a sentence, and thus cannot be said to be either 'correct' or 'incorrect'.

The person uttering the aforementioned collection of words would have to translate their thought into English language, so that another English speaker could make a judgment about the merit of their thought, as meaningfully expressed through the medium of an actual sentence.

Of course, one might discuss the merit of the sentence 'mental images are imputed to a visual aspect', but this would go beyond the actually asked question.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25421
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Malcolm » Tue Aug 02, 2016 6:53 pm

Matibhadra wrote:
Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English...
This shows you have read very little English, Lobzang.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4630
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by conebeckham » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:09 pm

Nonsense. That phrase exists in English......you may quibble with "on" or "upon" (or "To") but I think the phrase is not unclear.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

vinegar
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by vinegar » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:32 pm

Matibhadra wrote:Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English
Even if that were true, the english language gains and loses meanings frequently. (I wanted to call it a changing thing, but its technically not a momentary object.)

The question should be more like 'does it make sense?' In which case yes, mental images are layed upon, onto, to, aspects

Matibhadra
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:35 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Matibhadra » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:50 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Matibhadra wrote:
Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English...
This shows you have read very little English, Lobzang.
Or, more likely, that you thought very little about the much you think you have read.

Matibhadra
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:35 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Matibhadra » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:30 pm

conebeckham wrote: Nonsense. That phrase exists in English......
If it existed, it would express a meaning, because a “phrase”, by definition, is an expression, or the expression of a meaning.
you may quibble with "on" or "upon" (or "To") but I think the phrase is not unclear.
Since the so-called “phrase” is no phrase at all to start with, because it does not express any meaning, it cannot be either clear or unclear.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4630
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by conebeckham » Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:10 am

Matibhadra wrote:
conebeckham wrote: Nonsense. That phrase exists in English......
If it existed, it would express a meaning, because a “phrase”, by definition, is an expression, or the expression of a meaning.
you may quibble with "on" or "upon" (or "To") but I think the phrase is not unclear.
Since the so-called “phrase” is no phrase at all to start with, because it does not express any meaning, it cannot be either clear or unclear.
Is that you, Herbie? Or your long lost twin?
:smile:
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25421
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Malcolm » Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:17 am

Matibhadra wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Matibhadra wrote:
Since the phrase 'imputed upon' does not exist in English...
This shows you have read very little English, Lobzang.
Or, more likely, that you thought very little about the much you think you have read.
The usage "to impute upon" is many centuries old, and is found in the works of Samuel Coleridge, etc.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

Matibhadra
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:35 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Matibhadra » Wed Aug 03, 2016 5:27 pm

Malcolm wrote: The usage "to impute upon" is many centuries old, and is found in the works of Samuel Coleridge, etc.
A falsary does not like to be caught, let alone exposed, right?
By the way, spending a lot of time out there in Texas searching for my profiles on scholarly websites?
Anyway, please keep visiting my humble blog, and drop a comment there once in a while! One day if I have time I'll publish our old long '98 debate where your clumsy views were thoroughly defeated, whence your nocturnal panic attacks ever since!

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25421
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Malcolm » Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:38 pm

Matibhadra wrote:
Malcolm wrote: The usage "to impute upon" is many centuries old, and is found in the works of Samuel Coleridge, etc.
A falsary does not like to be caught, let alone exposed, right?
By the way, spending a lot of time out there in Texas searching for my profiles on scholarly websites?
Anyway, please keep visiting my humble blog, and drop a comment there once in a while! One day if I have time I'll publish our old long '98 debate where your clumsy views were thoroughly defeated, whence your nocturnal panic attacks ever since!

I don't live in Texas, nor do I ever spend time searching profiles, or for that matter, visit your blog. I have no interest in ghost cultists like you.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 4630
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by conebeckham » Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:29 pm

Matibhadra wrote:
Malcolm wrote: The usage "to impute upon" is many centuries old, and is found in the works of Samuel Coleridge, etc.
A falsary does not like to be caught, let alone exposed, right?
By the way, spending a lot of time out there in Texas searching for my profiles on scholarly websites?
Anyway, please keep visiting my humble blog, and drop a comment there once in a while! One day if I have time I'll publish our old long '98 debate where your clumsy views were thoroughly defeated, whence your nocturnal panic attacks ever since!
Based on your posts, I'd bet Malcolm's discussion regarding his "clumsy views" is worth a read. Unlike, say, your blog, which reflects a complete lack of understanding of Dzogchen. Then again, maybe I'm just imputing that lack of understanding upon you, if you catch my meaning.
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")

krodha
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by krodha » Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:56 am

conebeckham wrote:Unlike, say, your blog, which reflects a complete lack of understanding of Dzogchen.
Yeah, terrible.

Herbie
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:10 pm

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Post by Herbie » Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:38 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Herbie wrote: knowledge of emptiness is the result of rational analysis
Conceptual knowledge of emptiness is a result rational analysis, however, this is solely an "approximate ultimate." It is not the ultimate of realization.
yes but the primary effect of rational analysis which may be called "approximate ultimate" is the necessary cause for secondary effect which may be called "ultimate". So knowledge of emptiness of inherent existence or truth which may be called "ultimate" is the result of rational analysis.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kilaya. and 16 guests