xabir2005

No. He clearly said, appearance is not thoughtform, but a non-conceptual sense cognition. So it does not make sense to say everything 'appears' as thoughtforms. You were saying designations are made (upon the basis of) causes and conditions. He rejected and said designations are made on the basis of appearances, which he clarified, means a sense cognition, which he further clarifies, is a non-conceptual naked sense perception. And he clarifies that the designation (which are made on the basis of non-conceptual, naked sense perception) requires a concept, i.e. they are conceptual. He further clarifies that all direct perceptions (sense cognition, naked sense perceptions) are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not. Now, in conclusion we can make: not everything is conceptual, there are sense-cognitions/direct perceptions, which serve as the basis for conceptual designations. So we definitely have a naked sense perception before we define it or conceptualize it as 'it's a bird, it's a tree'. And that naked sense perception is what 'appearance' means. That 'it's a bird' is what 'designation' means.

You're the one who don't understand what Namdrol meant. Thats the fucking problem.

In fact now I see, Namdrol replied all your misconceptions before me. You didn't listen. Too bad. http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=4056&start=140 Enochian wrote:I can state the principles of of Gorampa's Madhyamaka without getting into negation. a. Everything exists as thoughtforms merely designated upon causes and conditions. Wrong. Gorampa rejects this point. Designations are made on the basis of appearances. N ............ Enochian wrote:Doesn't appearance = thoughtform? No, an appearance is a sense cognition. ........... gregkavarnos wrote:Aren't sense cognitions ultimately thought forms since (sensory) sensations pass through their respective sense-mind before we can cognise the sensory cognition? (to put it extraordinarily clumsily) :namaste: Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations. A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual.

What dependently originates are empty. So with regards to your first sentence, it's the same. As for "Emptiness generally holds that all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)." - Not all appearances are conceptual constructs. Sense perceptions are as Namdrol said, non-conceptual. So sense perceptions are non-conceptual appearances. However the reification into 'things, selves, entities' is due to conceptual construct, so it is in this sense that 'all things, including oneself, appear as thoughtforms (conceptual constructs)' - not that all appearances including non-conceptual sense perceptions are conceptual constructs. Both conceptual and non-conceptual appearances are equally dependently originated and empty. Namdrol: Not in the sense that Enochian is using the word i.e. as designations. A designation requires a concept, where as a naked sense perception is, by definition, non-conceptual. ........ All direct perceptions are non-conceptual whether one is awakened or not. Looks like you didn't listen closely to Namdrol.

Oh yes you told me emptiness is dependent origination, and Thusness said emptiness is dependent origination.

See, you can't even form a proper rebuttal.

And I think you're talking nonsense.

Thanks

I think you're blind for not seeing how the principle of D.O. is so clearly stated out in Stage 6. The view of inherent objects are conceptual constructs - Thusness have said this many times.

Not yet... will look into it when I'm free. Thanks for recommending.

Anything. I don't recall it.

Third turning stresses luminosity, second turning on emptiness. Luminosity and emptiness can't be separated so I do agree it should be seen as inseparable.

Just a clarification before you misrepresent anything: Stage 1 to 4 does not constitute Buddhist view, but Thusness's experience prior to realizing the Buddhist view. Stage 5 is anatta, Stage 6 is emptiness of dharmas/dependent origination.

Yes, I'm not going to ask him. If you are interested then its up to you.

Not interested. You seem interested, so why not?

Up to you.

Whatever. It's up to others to opine.

Woah, now everyone knows who the real asshole is.

I think that description is ok as long as it does not substantialize Mind - Mind too is empty. I like what 3rd Karmapa said: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Karmapa%20Rangjung%20Dorje All phenomena are illusory displays of mind. Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded, manifesting as everything whatsoever.

If you don't understand what I mean, then I'm afraid you don't have a clue what buddhist emptiness or dependent origination is.

See - you are simply projecting your views on him, instead of reading his writings as it is. Who cares about authorship when it's the contents that matters? Even if Thusness is an invented fictional character (which is not the case), does that even matter at all? Do you know that Mahayana sutras and Tantras don't necessarily originate from Buddha but from unknown authors?

What Thusness said has no contradictions at all - you simply project your own ideas on him.