If you studied a bit the literature then you should know. If you want to ignore it so be it. My motivation is not to sell anything or to evangelize anybody but I rely on that there is this variety of views about the meaning of the term "buddhahood" because I came across this diversity of views since I became interested in buddhism. Not wanting to persuade I am not going to put any effort in collecting quotes and reviewing literature since I do not want to present a scientific work here. There are already enough useless and futile activities in life but one of the most futile activities is arguing against beliefs.Pema Rigdzin wrote:1) You have not answered my first question, only re-stated that there are supposedly different "interpretations of what buddha means." I'm asking you to specify what those differences are, since you claim to know of them.
Have you your belief that there is only one standard belief and that's fine for me if you feel good about it. Still it is an indefinite idea (or a collection of ideas) represented by one single term that is not accessible by valid cognition if one does not include scripture being valid "inference".
You did not understand. I said "ultimate truth" is a conventional phenomenon therefore it is an object of mind. Objects of minds are valid or not in the sense that they may be verified by many minds if certain procedures agreed upon through convention are applied or they may not be so verified. As soon as you merely say "ultimate truth" you are in the sphere of conventional truth since either you refer to something which is merely your own private fantasy or you refer to something which can be verified by valid conventional cognition in this case by inference.Pema Rigdzin wrote: 2) My view is entirely consistent. Let me reiterate it for you. One can say accurate things (with respect to valid cognition or valid inferred cognition) about conventional phenomena. However, the ultimate truth is not an object of the conventional minds (discursive thought) and can only be nakedly experienced once the discursive mind has exhausted itself. Therefore, ultimate truth is not an object of analysis and anything one says about it -such as saying that emptiness is not blank but is inseparable from wisdom devoid of subject an object- is merely an expedient means of communication to stave off wrong views (such as that emptiness is nothingness and devoid of wisdom).
But I agree that the psycho-mental effects of such an inference may be completely different depending on the psycho-mental circumstances under which such an inference is made.
Sorry but I explicitely stated that I am referring to their logical reasoning procedures exclusively and not to any other teachings.Pema Rigdzin wrote: 3) So let me get this straight... according to you, Dharmakirti, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, and Tsongkhapa and the Gelugpas deny the inseparability of emptiness and wisdom and merely use emptiness to negate everything but emptiness? Are you really sure any of these masters ever said that analytical reasoning trumped primordial wisdom??? Or did they in fact say that analytical reasoning can take one's discursive mind to its very limits, at which point primordial wisdom can be laid bare?
I appreciate that you want to support your belief system but my intention is neither to establish a belief system nor to negate a belief system.
However I concede that one may also come to the conclusion that what is called "logic" is not different from a belief system since of course it is a conventional system only, i.e. a system of thought that is established through agreement on rules and the meaning of terms. In this sense then I would concede that I prefer the belief system of logical reasoning over metaphysical belief systems that teach "given" phenomena beyond human reasoning doing so through rhetorically and sophistically applying the intellect to reject critical reasoning.
I don't know.Pema Rigdzin wrote:4) Since you did not answer my previous 4th question, but instead just reiterated something about emptiness being mere negation, I'll restate the question: If your true nature involves no knowing aspect, i.e. wisdom, inseparable from emptiness, how did your present mind come about and what will happen to it once you realize emptiness?
"Dying" is conventional reality. It can be perceived and inferred. It is a reality valid across all belief systems. "buddhahood" is no such conventional reality in that it is more restricted as to no. of people and cannot be perceived and inferred unless specific scripture is accepted as "inference".Pema Rigdzin wrote: 5) You said:That's of course your own definition, but for the sake of argument, when such a sentient being dies, does this "buddhahood" die with him or her?TMingyur wrote: Of course if - for the sake of simplicity and to have something to talk about - we define "buddhahood" as being a subjective state of an individual of having removed of all fabrications from experience - this is not "blank nothingness". Would could it be "blank nothingness" since this sentient being will still experience? And how could it be functionless since this sentient being still breathes, moves etc.
When a sentient being dies it is dead and the body sort of "dissolves" gradually if not incinerated. This is the objectivied perspective.
Applying perception and inference inference this is all I can say about it. If you are not satisfied and content with that and if you are disiring for "more" then you should ask someone else or look into scriptures/commentaries which cover this issue.
Of course through applying what is called "mind". I am imprisoned being a sentient being.Pema Rigdzin wrote: 6) You have said that upon analysis, you cannot find your mind. In what way was it unable to be found?
A sentient being which cannot be found under analysis.Pema Rigdzin wrote: 7) What is it that cognizes emptiness?
What faculty is it?
Since only a sentient being may cognize it cognition being dependent on "mind" or "consciousness" or "awareness" (choose whatever term you prefer) the faculty necessarily has to be "mind" or "consciousness" or "awareness".