Page 36 of 37

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:22 pm
by vinegar
Malcolm wrote:
vinegar wrote: Kedrup Je states that wet&flowing is a common base for the 3 persons, 1 establishes water 1 nectar 1 pus n blood, due to their individual karma acting as contributing causes

There is only 1 object there, with several parts. There is only 1 world.
A proposition masterfully refuted by Gorampa.
I know have you translated it? I can't remember the name of the book which compared the 2 views..

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:04 pm
by Bakmoon
Lukeinaz wrote:Is it ok to say a conventional truth is true in relation to a deluded mind? In this respect a deluded mind can still make distinctions such as the difference between a red and green apple, virtue and non-virtue, ect. While valid distinctions can be made the deluded mind misapprehends the object and is therefore said to be mistaken.
Deluded minds can indeed make distinctions on the conventional level but we must be clear on what precisely that means. According to the Gelug school of interpretation, valid conventional cognitions (which are deluded) are said to be reliable, but mistaken. They are correct in so far as they apprehend the way in which things function, but they are not correct in terms of how they apprehend how things exist because that consciousness sees things as existing intrinsically.

Outside of the Gelug school I don't know the terminology used, but everyone agrees that conventionally, virtue is different from non-virtue. All Madhyamakas agree that even though phenomena are illusory, they can still function. In fact, reason demonstrates that it is the very fact they are illusory that makes them able to function, as a truly existent phenomena wouldn't be able to produce effects.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:19 pm
by Bakmoon
vinegar wrote:I know have you translated it? I can't remember the name of the book which compared the 2 views..
I think The Two Truths Debate by Sonam Thakchoe is the book you are looking for.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:41 pm
by Malcolm
vinegar wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
vinegar wrote: Kedrup Je states that wet&flowing is a common base for the 3 persons, 1 establishes water 1 nectar 1 pus n blood, due to their individual karma acting as contributing causes

There is only 1 object there, with several parts. There is only 1 world.
A proposition masterfully refuted by Gorampa.
I know have you translated it? I can't remember the name of the book which compared the 2 views..
Jose Cabezon published a version of it.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 2:11 am
by Wayfarer
One thought that occurs to me is that the meaning of 'delusion' in Buddhism, is very deep. It's not referring to the kinds of delusions that are caused by mental illnesses or drugs. It's about the 'human condition'. So 'being liberated from delusion' is realising a different state of being (which is symbolised and actualised by the Buddha and bodhisattvas.)

I only say that, because the delusion which takes ordinary objects as self-existent, is in reality 'the normal state' for most people, as they have nothing else to compare it to.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 11:10 am
by Bakmoon
Malcolm wrote:
vinegar wrote:I know have you translated it? I can't remember the name of the book which compared the 2 views..
Jose Cabezon published a version of it.
Silly me, it's his book Freedom From Extremes. How could I forget? I was reading it just earlier today.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested. Even for those who disagree with this old school approach to Madhyamaka, I think it will be good even just as food for thought.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:14 am
by Herbie
Bakmoon wrote:
Herbie wrote: you hold a Svatantrika view too. See ... speaking of "common appearances" in the affirmative is evidence for svatantrika view.
Can you prove that common appearance = svatantrika from the writings of Je Tsongkhapa?
yeah I could if I invested the time to scan throught all the literature but it is not worth the investment at the moment. Once you have completely understood it just does not make sense to invest further time in literature repetition.
Bakmoon wrote: I've read through the relevant sections in both his Great Lamrim and his Middle Lamrim and neither one of them talk about common appearances being a hallmark of svatantrika.
Not quite sure but "essence of true eloquence" may be the right source

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:39 am
by Herbie
conebeckham wrote:
Herbie wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Talking about common appearances, on the level of no analysis, does not make anyone a Svatantrika, Herbie.
you cannot talk on the level of no analysis here unless you actually are an ignorant. Are you an ignorant?
In the language of my birth, which is American English, we don't usually say "an ignorant." The word is an adjective in normal usage--you need an object for it to modify. Are you asking if I am an "ignorant being?" If that is the question, the answer is "yes." Furthermore, all sentient beings are likewise "ignorant beings" if they are not on the Bhumis. And talking, writing, discussing ontology is always on the level of conventions, appearances. Language is a common appearance, though as you've demonstrated, not entirely common.
I think there is some sort of metaphysics in your use of the term "ignorant".

conebeckham wrote: Analysis is conceptual. Language is conceptual. Reality is nonconceptual, or perhaps "transconceptual." Whether we are talking on the level of convention--"Please pass me the red apple"--or on the level of analysis-"the object "apple" is empty of "apple" because it has parts," etc.--all talk is based in convention, even if it attempts to point to that which is "absolute." Svatantrikas use statements of assertion regarding Truth in their presentation, while Prasangikas do not. However, Prasangikas do accept conventions and appearances on the level of no analysis.
See the point is just this: you know all these terms, Svatantrika, Prasangika etc. because you have read or heard about it. So your claim to write here without analytical knowledge is just nonsens. It is simply impossible that you are writing here non-analytically.

conebeckham wrote:
herbie wrote:
conebeckham wrote: You say he explicitly rejects common appearances, but I think that's a misunderstanding of his view.
As someone who is opposed to this system you may think what you like but you will never know this system.
I read Hopkins back in the mid-80's, herbie, and studied Tsong Khapa's presentation starting at that time, and have revisited aspects of it since then. Characterizing me as "opposed to this system" misses quite a bit of the nuance. I've said elsewhere that I think there are Skillful Means involved in this presentation. I'm not the only one who finds some flaws in the system, obviously. In the end, though, all "systems" or philosophy are flawed, from the POV of Buddha Dharma. Reality is beyond ken, and cannot be encompassed by rational, conceptual thought. Direct, unmitigated personal experience is the hallmark of Buddha's teaching, and the goal of philosophical systems as well as methods of Buddhist practice.
I am not interested in your personal beliefs. If Tsongkhapa's presentation remains obscure for you then so be it. There are neither advantages nor disadvantages for me resulting from your (non-)understanding.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:19 am
by Herbie
After all, guys, what we are talking about here is an understanding of all and everything. An understanding that covers all areas of human life including religions like buddhism, christianity, islam etc, life and death and science. That is the area covered by Tsongkhapa's system. So actually if you get Tsongkhapa's system there are no more questions left. It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:04 am
by smcj
It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
Herbie, you've come a long way.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:29 pm
by conebeckham
Herbie wrote:After all, guys, what we are talking about here is an understanding of all and everything. An understanding that covers all areas of human life including religions like buddhism, christianity, islam etc, life and death and science. That is the area covered by Tsongkhapa's system. So actually if you get Tsongkhapa's system there are no more questions left. It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
If one substitutes "Madhyamaka" for "TSongkhapa's system" I will agree with you.

As I think I, and others, have made clear, there are questions regarding Tsongkhapa's system. See Rongton, Gorampa, Dagstang Lotsawa,Sakya Chogden, Mipham, Pawo Rinpoche, Padma Karpo, and Karmapa Mikyo Dorje among others. I'm not going to re-hash it all yet again.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:09 am
by Herbie
conebeckham wrote:
Herbie wrote:After all, guys, what we are talking about here is an understanding of all and everything. An understanding that covers all areas of human life including religions like buddhism, christianity, islam etc, life and death and science. That is the area covered by Tsongkhapa's system. So actually if you get Tsongkhapa's system there are no more questions left. It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
If one substitutes "Madhyamaka" for "TSongkhapa's system" I will agree with you.
Do you really mean what you write? "TSongkhapa's system" replaces "Madhyamaka"? I.e. you agree to what I have written? Because only Tsongkhapa's system is grounded on rationality.
conebeckham wrote: As I think I, and others, have made clear, there are questions regarding Tsongkhapa's system.
Not if one applies rational philosophical thinking.
conebeckham wrote: See Rongton, Gorampa, Dagstang Lotsawa,Sakya Chogden, Mipham, Pawo Rinpoche, Padma Karpo, and Karmapa Mikyo Dorje among others.
Irrationalists are leading astray

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:12 am
by Herbie
smcj wrote:
It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
Herbie, you've come a long way.
you cannot have the slightest idea as to my way.
I am not a buddhist since I have understood Tsongkhapa's system and since i have understood Tsongkhapa's system I am not a follower of Tsongkhapa the buddhist but Tsongkhapa the philosopher has been an unexcelled inspiration .

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:27 am
by BuddhaFollower
Herbie wrote:Because only Tsongkhapa's system is grounded on rationality.
:rolling:

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:09 pm
by smcj
Herbie wrote:
smcj wrote:
It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
Herbie, you've come a long way.
you cannot have the slightest idea as to my way.
I am not a buddhist since I have understood Tsongkhapa's system and since i have understood Tsongkhapa's system I am not a follower of Tsongkhapa the buddhist but Tsongkhapa the philosopher has been an unexcelled inspiration .
Ok, I take it back then.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:37 pm
by Herbie
smcj wrote:
Herbie wrote:
smcj wrote: Herbie, you've come a long way.
you cannot have the slightest idea as to my way.
I am not a buddhist since I have understood Tsongkhapa's system and since i have understood Tsongkhapa's system I am not a follower of Tsongkhapa the buddhist but Tsongkhapa the philosopher has been an unexcelled inspiration .
Ok, I take it back then.
See, my point is just that: if guided by a consistent system of thought then rationality outweighs religious belief in terms of sustainable unconventional change of psycho-mental phenomena like perception.

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:35 pm
by Lukeinaz
conebeckham wrote:
Herbie wrote:After all, guys, what we are talking about here is an understanding of all and everything. An understanding that covers all areas of human life including religions like buddhism, christianity, islam etc, life and death and science. That is the area covered by Tsongkhapa's system. So actually if you get Tsongkhapa's system there are no more questions left. It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
If one substitutes "Madhyamaka" for "TSongkhapa's system" I will agree with you.

As I think I, and others, have made clear, there are questions regarding Tsongkhapa's system. See Rongton, Gorampa, Dagstang Lotsawa,Sakya Chogden, Mipham, Pawo Rinpoche, Padma Karpo, and Karmapa Mikyo Dorje among others. I'm not going to re-hash it all yet again.
Would you mind sending me a pm or at least a page number where you hash out your main argument against this system? Thanks!

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:13 am
by conebeckham
Lukeinaz wrote:
conebeckham wrote:
Herbie wrote:After all, guys, what we are talking about here is an understanding of all and everything. An understanding that covers all areas of human life including religions like buddhism, christianity, islam etc, life and death and science. That is the area covered by Tsongkhapa's system. So actually if you get Tsongkhapa's system there are no more questions left. It is not that all your former questions have been answered but that many of your former questions simply do not arise anymore because they do not make sense anymore.
If one substitutes "Madhyamaka" for "TSongkhapa's system" I will agree with you.

As I think I, and others, have made clear, there are questions regarding Tsongkhapa's system. See Rongton, Gorampa, Dagstang Lotsawa,Sakya Chogden, Mipham, Pawo Rinpoche, Padma Karpo, and Karmapa Mikyo Dorje among others. I'm not going to re-hash it all yet again.
Would you mind sending me a pm or at least a page number where you hash out your main argument against this system? Thanks!
Chapter 6 of "Center of the Sunlit Sky" outlines Karmapa Mikyo Dorje's objections (and his various points of agreement) with TsongKhapa's presentation. Starts on page 553 of that book.

Mipham's "Beacon of Certainty" has something to say about this issue.

This is a basic summary of a variety of viewpoints.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 2:19 am
by Lukeinaz
Dependently arisen phenomena are ultimately reducible to the effects of ignorant consciousness , and hence cannot be the ultimate truth of any other phenomena.
Is this in accordance with Gorampa's view?

Re: Inherency and the Object of Negation

Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:14 pm
by Lukeinaz
Lukeinaz wrote:
Dependently arisen phenomena are ultimately reducible to the effects of ignorant consciousness , and hence cannot be the ultimate truth of any other phenomena.
Is this in accordance with Gorampa's view?
I ask because I am interested to know how you ( cone, Malcolm, ect.) reconcile dependent arising with emptiness if all dependent arisings are necessarily just ignorance.