Pema Rigdzin wrote:Sorry TMingyur, but you're mistaken. Take a look at the Uttaratantra shastra which will make it clear that emptiness and clarity are inseparable in the tathagatagarbha, yet it involves no self, no subject or object.
Thank you for this!
This shows that the crucial point is:
Does one consider the "objectivity" of scripture as valid as pure analytical objectivity?
It really boils down to this question.
Pema Rigdzin wrote:
It is nondual wisdom. Perhaps you feel your view is superior to this fundamental Mahayana text? Maybe you could explain how there could be anything but absolute nihilistic nothingness if emptiness and clarity were two?
Maybe you could explain how your present mind's knowing - that which is doing all this dualistic analysis - does not constitute a self while it knows, yet emptiness suffused with non-dual gnosis does constitute a self?
1) As to "nondual wisdom", "
dualistic analysis", "
non-dual gnosis"
I do no consider this talking about "non-dual" or "dualistic" very helpful because this in itself implies a dualism and presumes that dualism is something one has to (or does finally) get rid of. But dualism is not bad, is not something to be abandoned and one will never get rid of as long as there is interaction with other beings.
2) As to "Perhaps you feel your view is superior"
It has nothing to do with superiority, it has just to do whether one is content with what is analytically accessible or not. This is all there is: Either "experience non-purified and inextricably intermingled with deluded thought" or "experience purified by analysis" after analysis has reached the farest point it may get and thusness being the "remaining" non-conceptual experiencing.
When there is "desire for more" then there is "asking" and grasping answers that are not accessible in the first place and thus necessarily are fabrications.
3) As to "Maybe you could explain how there could be anything but absolute nihilistic nothingness if emptiness and clarity were two? "
Nothing to grasp does not necessarily mean "nihilism" because "nihilism" is based on frustrated deluded fabricating thought.
4) As to "Maybe you could explain how your present mind's knowing - that which is doing all this
dualistic analysis - does
not constitute a self while it knows"
No need to explain beyond what may be experienced after "experience non-purified and inextricably intermingled with deluded thought" has been purified by uncompromising analysis.
Mind cannot be found. Period.
Self cannot be found. Period.
5) As to "Maybe you could explain ... emptiness suffused with
non-dual gnosis
does constitute a self?[/quote]
"non-dual gnosis" what is that?
How can a mere non-affirming negation be suffused with anything?
Emptiness being non-affirming negation just removes the object its preceding analysis is direct to but this what is called "seeing", "hearing", "smelling" etc. is not removed. Appearences keep "coming" and "going".
How can something grasped that cannot be affirmed but being mere fabricating thought not constitute a self - this self being the impulsive desire for affirmatively establishing phenomena in order to cling to them?
Kind regards