Debate & Reasoning in Tibetan Buddhism discussion

33 views
Consiousness Debates

Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
What is the difference between the two, Direct Perceiver and Subsequent Cognizer?


message 2: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
There are four possibilities.


(subsequent cognizer is a new term for me, and I've forgotten a lot of debate)


message 3: by Sam (last edited May 03, 2008 12:56PM) (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that there are not four possibilities. Posit something which is both.

(a subsequent cognizer is defined as a knower which is not a prime cognizer and which realizes what has already been realized by the former prime cognizer inducing it OR a knower which realizes that which has already been realized. Also subsequent cognizers may be divided into two - direct perceivers and conceptual cognizers. Conceptual cognizers are also divided into two - those induced by direct perception and those induced by inference.) & four possibilities is correct.


message 4: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
There is something, the subject, a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer.


(Thanks, i had to consult my trusty perdue debate book. as far as conceptual cognizer, what is meant by the phrase "induced by..." especially in regards to "induced by direct perception?" a conceptual cognizer induced by direct perception seems quite odd to me, so i must be missing something? and is cognizer M.I. with knower/consciousness/awareness/the clear and knowing? I can't find a definition for 'cognizer' in my book.)


message 5: by Sam (last edited May 03, 2008 12:48PM) (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that the subject, a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer, is a direct perceiver. (if you accept, then why do you say that...?)

(i think that "induced by..." must mean "caused by...," especially, though not necessarily, in the sense of proceeding from one moment to the next moment - at least that's my best guess.
With regards to a [subsequent conceptual cognizer induced by inference], i think that this is M.I. with Subsequent Inferential Cognizer. An example of the process would be, "the first moment of an inferential cognizer (i.e. - a prime inferential cognizer) realizing sound to be impermanent, itself a conceptual consciousness, induces a second moment of inference which realizes sound to be impermanent; the second moment is a [subsequent conceptual cognizer induced by inference]." (86)
With regards to a [subsequent conceptual cognizer induced by direct perception], the first moment is a (prime) direct perception and the second moment is conceptual. An example of the process would be, "a sense direct perceiver apprehending blue sees the blue, and subsequent to that (in the next moment) the thought is induced, 'i saw blue;'" (86) the second moment is a [subsequent conceptual cognizer induced by direct perception].
as far as [cognizer] is concerned, i think that there are 3 possibilities between [cognizer] and the [knower/consciousness/awareness/the clear and knowing]. Whatever is a cognizer is necessarily a consciousness, but whatever is a consciousness is not necessarily a cognizer. for example, a [correctly assuming consciousness], an [awareness to which an object appears but is not ascertained], a [doubting consciousness], and a [wrong consciousness] -these are all [non-cognizing awarenesses] according to Lati Rinbochay.
i think that [cognizer] must be M.I. with [Valid Cognizer], as only inferential cognizers and direct perceivers are [cognizers]. i cannot think of something which is a [cognizer], but is not a [valid cognizer] - i could be totally wrong, this is just what i could gather. all this info is drawn from "Mind in Tibetan Buddhism.")



message 6: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
I accept it.
:spell out your answer, "I accept it":
I accept that a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer is a direct perceiver.
:Why do you say that the subject, a DPSC, is a DP?:
Because of being a a valid cognizer which is not an inferential cognizer.

("Induced by" meaning "Caused by" would be my best guess as well.

then a subsequent cognizer and subsequent inferential cognizer must 3 possibilities correct? otherwise my above answer is quite wrong.

Thanks for the clarification of cognizer and knower. I guess I was thinking of cognizer in "western scientific" terms.

I never got to read the "Mind" book. In my debate class we never used it, and the 2nd semester where they used it wasn't offered during my time, so a lot of the consciousness stuff is new to me. I've always meant to pick up a copy, but I kept thinking i would run into it one day in a book store. I haven't. I think you are right with cognizer/valid cognizer being M.I.)






message 7: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that whatever is a valid cognizer which is not an inferential cognizer is necessarily a direct perceiver.

(I think that you must be right with respect to there being 3 possibilities between subsequent cognizer and subsequent inferential cognizer.

"Mind" is really dense and full of weird obscure detail, most of which I can't remember off the top of my head, but its also really short and the general divisions of consciousnesses are pretty easy to keep straight.)


message 8: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
I accept it.


message 9: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that the subject, a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer, is a subsequent cognizer.


message 10: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
I accept it.


message 11: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
Why do you say that the subject, a directly perceiving subsequent cognizer, is a subsequent cognizer?


message 12: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
because of being a knower which is a cognizer but not a prime cognizer.

(I wanted to just write - a knower which is not a prime cognizer - but it seems that would include something like a wrong consciousness despite that is its definition.)


message 13: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that whatever is a knower which is a cognizer but not a prime cognizer is necessarily a subsequent cognizer.


message 14: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
i accept it.


message 15: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
Now posit something which is a direct perceiver, but not a subsequent cognizer.

(I think you're right - wrong cons. is a knower which is not a prime cognizer. Also, your Reason in "message 12" sounds strange to me somehow, I think you were mentioning [cognizer] as strange before and it still sounds strange to me too, but I think that your answer has to be right - the only thing that it can refer to is a [subsequent cognizer]. All the consciousness divisions still feel new to me and we didn't get really serious about it in terms of actually having full out debates about it.)


message 16: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
There is something, the subject, a Directly Perceiving Prime Cognizer.


message 17: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that the subject, a Directly Perceiving Prime Cognizer, is a Direct Perceiver.

(If you accept, then why do you say that?)


message 18: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
I accept it.
...
Because of being a non-mistaken knower free from conceptuality.


message 19: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that whatever is a non-mistaken knower free from conceptuality is necessarily a direct perceiver.

(If you accept it, Then it follows that a directly perceiving prime cognizer is not a subsequent cognizer - if you accept that, then why so you say that?)


message 20: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
I accept it

A dppc is not a sc because of being a prime cognizer.

(sorry it took me a while, my thoughtshave been scattered.)


message 21: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
It follows that whatever is a [PC] is necessarily not a [SC].

(no worries, it takes me a long time too sometimes. I was thinking that we don't have to do the full debate if you don't want - just a shorthand or even skip it, since there is only the [Neither] category left. Don't let me mislead you - I can get pretty nerdy about this stuff, even to the point of tedium, so if you want to do the whole debate then I am totally up for it. It seems like the rest would be easy for you and since I am only asking questions then it would be easy for me too, but whatever. I am game for anything.)


message 22: by Walter (new)

Walter (wal-tor) | 14 comments Mod
I accept it.

(I'm nerdy with this stuff too. How about let's end this one without the neither and I'll tackle the next one.)


message 23: by Sam (new)

Sam Vanneman | 16 comments Mod
Sounds good


back to top