1. What do we really mean when we say an Outsider believes that the soul (atman) is "unchanging"? Does karma "change" atman (or the "self")?
2. At some point I would appreciate further discussion of omniscience. I think I understand that we want to say that someone who has achieved enlightenment has removed all impediments to knowledge, but must that also mean he immediately knows all facts of all time -- rather than having a perfect understanding of the nature of all things? Does it really matter that an enlightened one know who will win the World Cup in 2024? Also, is the future really knowable if it is not predestined?
3. Is something that exists as a pure idea - such as a mathematical concept (pi) - a "phenomenon" that is covered by the Two Truths?
Is characterlessness the same as Emptiness? How are they different?
Under Vaisheshikas and the naiyayikas, they say space is substance. How is this possible?
Under the Ch 3 The general exposition of Buddhist tenets, The text says "The fundamental idea of the 1st wheel was that all phenomena without exception are established by way of their own character as the referents of conceptual consciousnesses and that in this respect there is no cause for differentiation among them." I don't understand the wording, but I think it go against Emptiness?
pg 305, 3rd indented para. about very hidden objects. If the layout of the universe is known through such means as inference based on valid scriptures why does His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama regularly say in his teachings that since modern science has shown no proof of Mt. Meru and the four continents and eight subcontinents in this world system that they do not exist. Modern scientific evidence is supported by empirical findings - not inference. The two methods of reasoning are different aren't they??
Geshe Dhargey, you once explained in class that permanent phenomena depends on things but does not arise by cause. Can you help me understand the Sutra, Mind Only, and Autonomists view on past and future, and how it is considered a permanent (non-functioning) thing? Is not present a cause for future, as well as an effect of past?
On page 184, tof "Cutting Through Appearances" there is a discussion re: "definiendum" vs. "illustration"....is it talking about general vs. specific objects and that you need to understand what a general object is before you can understand the function of a specific object....like for instance "house" would be general and "Johns's house" would be specific and a functioning thing. You would need to know what a "house" is before you can understand "John's house"...am I on the right track?
I was struck by something on the bottom of page 126 (end of second-to-last paragraph) that I thought might be interesting to hear Geshe la speak more about:
".....the main interest being to separate correctly perceiving from improperly perceiving consciousnesses and to identify the difference between conceptual and non-conceptual consciosnesses, the latter, when they realize selflessness, being more powerful for overcoming obstructions to liberation and to full enlightenment.
06/26/12... tonight's class was totally mind-blowing awesome!!! What a great group of instructors and students. Thank you Geshe Dhargye La and Jampa La. So thankful to be able to skype in. I would love to revisit it. Are the classes being recorded for download? Can someone shoot me an email with link if so? Tashi delek!
1. What do we really mean when we say an Outsider believes that the soul (atman) is "unchanging"? Does karma "change" atman (or the "self")?
ReplyDelete2. At some point I would appreciate further discussion of omniscience. I think I understand that we want to say that someone who has achieved enlightenment has removed all impediments to knowledge, but must that also mean he immediately knows all facts of all time -- rather than having a perfect understanding of the nature of all things? Does it really matter that an enlightened one know who will win the World Cup in 2024? Also, is the future really knowable if it is not predestined?
3. Is something that exists as a pure idea - such as a mathematical concept (pi) - a "phenomenon" that is covered by the Two Truths?
what is "ayatas"? pg 158
ReplyDeleteIs characterlessness the same as Emptiness? How are they different?
Under Vaisheshikas and the naiyayikas, they say space is substance. How is this possible?
Under the Ch 3 The general exposition of Buddhist tenets, The text says "The fundamental idea of the 1st wheel was that all phenomena without exception are established by way of their own character as the referents of conceptual consciousnesses and that in this respect there is no cause for differentiation among them." I don't understand the wording, but I think it go against Emptiness?
pg 305, 3rd indented para. about very hidden objects.
ReplyDeleteIf the layout of the universe is known through such means as inference based on valid scriptures why does His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama regularly say in his teachings that since modern science has shown no proof of Mt. Meru and the four continents and eight subcontinents in this world system that they do not exist. Modern scientific evidence is supported by empirical findings - not inference. The two methods of reasoning are different aren't they??
Geshe Dhargey, you once explained in class that permanent phenomena depends on things but does not arise by cause. Can you help me understand the Sutra, Mind Only, and Autonomists view on past and future, and how it is considered a permanent (non-functioning) thing? Is not present a cause for future, as well as an effect of past?
Do all Buddhist tenets believe the idea of conventional and ultimate reality?
ReplyDeleteOn page 184, tof "Cutting Through Appearances" there is a discussion re: "definiendum" vs. "illustration"....is it talking about general vs. specific objects and that you need to understand what a general object is before you can understand the function of a specific object....like for instance "house" would be general and "Johns's house" would be specific and a functioning thing. You would need to know what a "house" is before you can understand "John's house"...am I on the right track?
ReplyDeleteI was struck by something on the bottom of page 126 (end of second-to-last paragraph) that I thought might be interesting to hear Geshe la speak more about:
ReplyDelete".....the main interest being to separate correctly perceiving from improperly perceiving consciousnesses and to identify the difference between conceptual and non-conceptual consciosnesses, the latter, when they realize selflessness, being more powerful for overcoming obstructions to liberation and to full enlightenment.
the part in bold font is really intriguing!
06/26/12... tonight's class was totally mind-blowing awesome!!! What a great group of instructors and students. Thank you Geshe Dhargye La and Jampa La. So thankful to be able to skype in. I would love to revisit it. Are the classes being recorded for download? Can someone shoot me an email with link if so? Tashi delek!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete